inventory of assessed federal coal resources and ...provides some basic information for any such...

Inventory of Assessed Federal Coal Resources and Restrictions to Their Development

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, P.L. 109-58 §437

Prepared by the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior and Agriculture

August 2007

STEERING COMMITTEE

Terry Ackman, Department of Energy–National Energy Technology Laboratory*John R. Duda, Department of Energy–National Energy Technology LaboratoryJohn Lewis, Department of the Interior–Bureau of Land ManagementJames Luppens, Department of Interior–U.S. Geological SurveyDarren Mollot, Department of EnergyTracy Parker, Forest Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureBrenda Pierce, Department of Interior–U.S. Geological SurveyRichard L. Watson, Department of the Interior–Bureau of Land ManagementWilliam Watson, Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration

*Interagency Steering Committee Chairman

Any use of trade, product, or fi rm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This page intentionally left blank

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................v

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................................2

1.2 The EPAct 437 Coal Inventory ..................................................................................................5

1.3 Approach ...................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Roles of the Agencies Pertaining to This Inventory ..................................................................7

1.5 Intended Use.............................................................................................................................8

2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................................9

2.1 Procedures for Collecting and Preparing Land Status and Coal Development Restrictions ....9

2.1.1 Federal Land Status ........................................................................................................9

2.1.1.1 Sources of Land Status Data .............................................................................9

2.1.1.2 Land Status Data Preparation ............................................................................9

2.1.1.3 Land Status Data – Related Caveats ...............................................................10

2.1.2 Federal Coal Lease Requirements ...............................................................................12

2.1.2.1 Coal Leasing Decisions ...................................................................................12

2.1.2.2 Sources of Lease Restriction Data ..................................................................14

2.1.2.3 Lease Requirements Data Preparation ............................................................15

2.1.2.4 Lease Requirements Data – Related Caveats .................................................15

2.2 Procedures for Collecting and Preparing Coal Resource Data...............................................16

2.2.1 Sources of Coal Resource Data ...................................................................................16

2.3 Data Integration and Spatial Analysis .....................................................................................27

2.3.1 Categorization of Coal Access Constraints ...................................................................27

2.3.1.1 Data Integration and Spatial Analysis – Related Caveats ................................31

2.4 Analytical Modeling of Federal Lands and Resources ............................................................31

2.5 Consideration of Resources beyond Conventional Surface Mining Technology .....................31

2.6 Consideration of Exception Factors as a Scenario to the Base Case ....................................32

2.7 Consideration of Confl ict Administration Zones ......................................................................32

2.8 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................34

2.9 Reporting of Results ...............................................................................................................34

ii

3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................35

3.1 Study Area Features ................................................................................................................35

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ A1-1

Appendix 2 Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................... A2-1

Appendix 3 GIS Data Preparation and Methodology ...................................................................... A3-1

Appendix 4 BLM CAZ Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153 ....................................................... A4-1

Appendix 5 Federal Coal Development Restrictions ....................................................................... A5-1

Appendix 6 Referenced Documents .................................................................................................. A6-1

FIGURES

Executive Summary

Figure ES-1. United States Federal Coal in USGS Assessments by Basin ................................... v

Figure ES-2. Powder River Basin Study Area ...............................................................................vii

Figure ES-3. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Total Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category ....................................................................... x

Figure ES-4. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Federal Coal Resources by Coal Reliability Type ........................................................................................... xi

Section 1.0 – Introduction

Figure 1-1. United States Coal Production (2004-2005) .............................................................2

Figure 1-2. USGS Assessed Coal Basins ...................................................................................2

Figure 1-3a. Powder River Basin Study Area ...............................................................................3

Figure 1-3b. Powder River Basin Planning Areas .........................................................................4

Section 2.0 – Methods

Figure 2-1. Federal Land Status Map, Powder River Basin Study Area .................................. 11

Figure 2-2. USGS Assessment Units in the Powder River Basin ............................................17

Figure 2-3. Overburden Thickness above Assessed Coal Zones in the Powder River Basin ..25

Figure 2-4. Thickness of Assessed Coal Zones in the Powder River Basin .............................26

Figure 2-5. Assessed Coal Resource Reliability Map ...............................................................28

Figure 2-6. Resources beyond Conventional Surface Mining Technology in the Powder River Basin ......................................................................................33

iii

Section 3.0 – Results

Figure 3-1. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Total Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category .................................................................... 37

Figure 3-2. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Federal Coal Resources by Coal Reliability Type ..........................................................................................37

Figure 3-3a. Federal Land Access Categorization Map, Northern Powder River Basin Study Area ..............................................................................................................38

Figure 3-3b. Federal Land Access Categorization Map, Southern Powder River Basin Study Area ..............................................................................................................39

Figure 3-4. Federal Coal Thickness, Powder River Basin ........................................................40

Appendix 2 Glossary of Terms

Figure A2-1. United States Coal Resources and Reserves .................................................... A2-2

Appendix 3 GIS Data Preparation and Methodology

Figure A3-1. Schematic of BLM’s Primary Land Records Databases ..................................... A3-1

Figure A3-2. Master Polygon................................................................................................... A3-3

Figure A3-3. Public Domain Lands.......................................................................................... A3-4

Figure A3-4. Query of U.S. Rights Data .................................................................................. A3-4

Figure A3-5. Federal Split Estates Coal Ownership ................................................................ A3-5

Figure A3-6. Defi ning Ownership ............................................................................................ A3-5

Figure A3-7. Surface Management View ................................................................................ A3-6

Figure A3-8. Subsurface Coal Ownership View ...................................................................... A3-6

Figure A3-9. Restriction Polygons and Study Area Boundary ................................................. A3-7

Figure A3-10. Example of Polygons after Clipping to Study Area Boundary ............................ A3-7

Figure A3-11. Query in ArcGIS for all “Wilderness Study Area” Restrictions ............................ A3-8

Figure A3-12. Attribute Table Showing “Wilderness Study Area” Polygons .............................. A3-8

Figure A3-13. New Polygons Representing Land with Leasing Restriction for “Wilderness Study Area” ..................................................................................... A3-9

Figure A3-14. Display of Overlapping Restrictions ................................................................. A3-12

Figure A3-15. Display of Federal Land Access Category ....................................................... A3-12

Figure A3-16. Display of Federal Land Access Category without Sage Grouse Habitat Restriction Excepted......................................................................................... A3-13

Figure A3-17. Display of Federal Land Access Category with Sage Grouse Habitat Restriction Excepted......................................................................................... A3-13

iv

TABLES

Executive Summary

Table ES-1. Summary of Inventory Study Area―Powder River Basin Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category ............................................................... ix

Table ES-2. Coal Reserves Under Lease By Application and Leased Coal Reserves Remaining to be Mined in the PRB as of September 30, 2006 ................................ x

Section 1.0 – Introduction

Table 1-1. Assessed Federal Coal Resources ..........................................................................1

Section 2.0 – Methods

Table 2-1. Federal Land Acreage by Management Agency.....................................................12

Table 2-2. Coal Leasing Unsuitability Criteria..........................................................................14

Table 2-3. Land Use Plans in the EPAct 437 Coal Inventory ..................................................15

Table 2-4. Coal Reserves Under Lease By Application and Leased Coal Reserves Remaining to be Mined in the PRB as of September 30, 2006 ..............................18

Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table ............................................................18

Table 2-6. Access Categorization Hierarchy ...........................................................................29

Table 2-7. Coal Land Use Planning Screens with EPAct Categorization ................................29

Table 2-8. Coal Unsuitability Criteria with EPAct Categorization .............................................30

Section 3.0 – Results

Table 3-1. Summary of Inventory Study Area―Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category ................................................................................................36

Appendix 3 GIS Data Preparation and Methodology

Table A3-1. Polygon Attributes from the LR-2000 Datasets .................................................. A3-3

Table A3-2. Typical CarteView Input File ............................................................................... A3-4

Table A3-3. Restriction Exception Factors by FS and BLM Offi ce....................................... A3-10

Table A3-4. Exception Factors Example for Overlapping Restrictions ................................ A3-10

Table A3-5. Sample Master Restrictions List for a Selected Area ....................................... A3-12

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 437 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture to conduct an inventory of coal resources underlying Federal lands. Further, EPAct directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to Congress containing the inventory and update it as the availability of data and developments in technology warrant.

Under Section 437, the Inventory shall identify Federal lands that are presently available for coal development and the extent and nature of any restrictions on the development of coal resources on those lands. Section 437 of EPAct also calls for the identifi cation of com-pliant and supercompliant coal resources where suffi cient data exist. Compliant and su-percompliant coal resources are defi ned in terms of sulfur dioxide content per million British thermal units (BTU). Analysis of existing information indicates that data are either lacking or of insuffi cient density to facilitate a scientifi cally robust spatial analysis/allocation of this parameter.

Additionally, assessments in Alaska are not included in this Inventory. While Alaska has vast coal resources, much of which are Federally owned, digital data for Alaskan coal own-ership are not currently available, a small fraction of the basins and fi elds are assessed, and planning has either not been done or coal leasing planning deferred until leasing inter-ests are provided.

Based on recent United States Geological Survey (USGS) assessments, Federal coal re-sources in the United States total 957,000 million short tons (MST), as shown in Figure ES-1. The Powder River Basin (PRB or Basin) is the location of the most complete datasets needed for determining the restrictions on the development of Federal coal assessed and, as a consequence, is the focus of the effort reported herein. The Inventory will be updated as additional information from other areas becomes as complete as that of the PRB.

Figure ES-1. United States Federal Coal in USGS Assessments by Basin

vi

The PRB contains nearly 58 percent (over 550,000 million short tons) of the total Federal resources currently assessed. In recent years, of the coal produced from Federal lands, 88 percent comes from the PRB, and the Basin is also the most active location for Federal leasing. The Bureau of Land Management received eight lease applications for 26,050 acres containing 3,400 million short tons of coal in the PRB alone in 2006 (more than three years of the national annual average consumption). A map of the PRB study area is depict-ed in Figure ES-2 showing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Field Offi ce (FO) boundar-ies and Forest Service (FS), Department of Agriculture areas.

This Inventory provides information regarding the geographic relationship between coal resources and the constraints that govern their development in the Powder River Basin. It is not a reassessment of any restrictions themselves on the development of coal resources. The public’s opportunity to participate in any change of restrictions on coal development activities will occur during the land use planning or legislative process. This Inventory provides some basic information for any such process. Additional information may be available from monitoring and scientifi c studies incorporated into adaptive management processes.

All Federal coal must be included in a land use plan prior to leasing. These coal leases, including those issued with only the standard lease terms, are subject to full compliance with all laws and regulations. These laws establish the restrictions and impediments en-compassed in this Inventory and include, but are not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Surface Mining Con-trol and Reclamation Act, Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and National Historic Preservation Act.

This Inventory was prepared under the lead of the Department of Energy (DOE). Senior professionals from the DOE Offi ce of Fossil Energy (National Energy Technology Labora-tory) and Energy Information Administration, Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and USGS, and the Forest Service were the major contributors. The DOE provided technical expertise to guide the design and analysis process for the Inventory. USGS provided the assessment of coal resources beneath Federal lands. Field offi ces of the BLM and the FS contributed their land use planning information regarding coal avail-ability and leasing requirements for the lands under their respective jurisdictions.

This Inventory is based on information that has been previously developed through the sci-entifi c and planning processes of the contributing Federal agencies. This information has in large part been provided to the public for its review and use and is the best that is commer-cially and scientifi cally available. It has been compiled and analyzed by experts from the contributing agencies. The analytical methods and protocols used in this study have been subjected to rigorous review. The study necessarily incorporates the assumptions, condi-tions, and limitations of the supporting scientifi c information as discussed in this report.

vii

Figure ES-2. Powder River Basin Study Area

viii

The Inventory examines the Powder River Basin, the major producing area of Federal coal in the United States. The Inventory encompasses almost 7 million acres (10,900 sq. mi.) of land in the PRB. Of this, the Federal mineral estates (Federal coal ownership) total 5.4 million acres (8,400 sq. mi.), of which 4.5 million acres (7,030 sq. mi.) underlie non-Federal surface (split estates lands).

This analysis of constraints to development centers on three factors that affect the devel-opment of coal resources on Federal lands. These factors are (1) whether the lands are statutorily available for leasing, (2) whether there has been land use planning to determine future leasing of the area, and (3) the degree of access afforded by leasing restrictions and other conditions on lands where land use planning has been completed. All coal leases are subject to a baseline level of constraint governed by statutory and regulatory requirements. These restrictions serve many purposes, ranging from the protection of environmental, min-eral, social, historical, or cultural resources or values, to the payment of rentals and royal-ties.

To focus the analysis of constraints on coal development, the Inventory evaluates the Fed-eral lands where: (1) leasing and development is permitted under standard lease terms and conditions; (2) leasing is permitted with varying limitations on access, from required surface mitigation to no surface operations; and (3) coal leasing and development is precluded or prohibited. The Inventory considers exceptions that may be granted to restrictions after a review of on-the-ground conditions. It also considers the potential for surface mining utiliz-ing current technology, then designates the remaining coal resources as beyond conven-tional surface mining technology.

The results of this Inventory for the Powder River Basin (Table ES-1, Figure ES-3, and Figure ES-4) are summarized below. The results below exclude areas containing unmined coal currently under development (leased coal or coal resources under Lease by Appli-cation (LBA)), which comprise an estimated 11,600 million short tons, as shown in Table ES-2. The environmental work for that portion of the resource has already been performed or is under administrative review. As such, the remainder of the Inventory examines the subset of the resource base for which the fi nal environmental work has yet to be performed.

Total assessed Federal coal resource acreage, including split estates, total 5.4 million acres (8,400 sq. mi.).

Undeveloped assessed coal resources total 550,000 MST.

Approximately 1.5 percent (82,000 acres (128 sq. mi.)) of assessed Federal coal resource acreage is available for mining under standard lease terms (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Category 7). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 5 percent (27,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

Less than 1 percent (12,000 acres (19 sq. mi.)) of Federal mineral estate is available for mining with mitigation measures (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Category 6). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 1 percent (3,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

•

•

•

•

ix

Table ES-1. Summary of Inventory Study Area―Powder River Basin Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category

Access CategoryArea

Coal TypesTotal Coal

Hypothetical Inferred Indicated Measured

(Acres) Percent of Federal (MST)* (MST) (MST) (MST) (MST) Percent of

Federal1. No Leasing (Statutory/Execu-tive Order), (NLS)

184,385 3.4 245 9,636 4,524 872 15,277 2.8

2. No Leasing (Administrative), general category (NLA)

406,172 7.5 280 10,494 5,064 1,043 16,880 3.1

3. Possible Leasing (Admin-istrative), Pending Land Use Planning or NEPA Compliance (PL-PLUP)

3,571,162 65.8 28,875 243,230 93,926 21,435 387,466 70.4

4. Possible Leasing (Administra-tive), Pending Surface Owner Consent (PL-PSOC)

738,827 13.6 – 29,919 37,471 9,128 77,045 14.0

5. Leasing, No Surface Op-erations Anticipated/Offset Area (NSOA/OA)

430,941 7.9 515 12,506 8,756 1,864 23,640 4.3

6. Surface Mining Allowed with Mitigation (SUR-MIT)

12,208 0.2 – 179 1,744 739 2,662 0.5

7. Leasing, Standard Lease Terms (SLTs)

81,962 1.5 255 9,148 14,156 3,676 27,235 5.0

Total Federal 5,425,657 100 30,696 315,113 165,641 38,757 550,206 100.0

NonFederal 1,403,858 10,589 52,881 28,135 5,875 97,480

Total 6,829,515 41,285 367,994 193,775 44,633 647,686 * Million Short Tons

Approximately 8 percent (431,000 acres (673 sq. mi.)) of Federal land is accessible in areas with no surface mining anticipated or under offsets (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Category 5). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 4 percent (24,000 MST) of the Federal coal in the basin.

Approximately 14 percent (739,000 acres (1,154 sq. mi.)) of Federal land is not avail-able for leasing without Federal surface management agency or qualifi ed surface owner consent (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Category 4). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 14 percent (77,000 MST) of the Federal coal in the basin.

Land use planning screens have not been applied to approximately 66 percent (3.6 million acres (5,600 sq. mi.)) of Federal coal estate (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Catego-ry 3). Based on resource estimates, these low current development interest (coals deeper than a 10:1 strip ratio) lands contain about 70 percent (387,000 MST) of the Federal coal assessed by the USGS.

•

•

•

x

Table ES-2. Coal Reserves Under Lease By Application and Leased Coal Reserves Remaining to be Mined in the PRB as of September 30, 2006

Coal Development Status Wyoming(MST)

Montana(MST)

Total(MST)

Unmined Coal Under Lease 6,476 458 6,934Lease by Application 4,513 109 4,622Total Unmined Coal Under Development 10,989 566 11,555

Approximately 8 percent (406,000 acres (635 sq. mi.)) of Federal land is not being leased as a result of local land use planning decisions (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Cat-egory 2). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain about 3 percent (17,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

Approximately 3 percent (184,000 acres (288 sq. mi.)) of Federal land is statutorily not leasable (Figures ES-3 and ES-4, Category 1). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain about 3 percent (15,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

•

•

Figure ES-3. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Total Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category

xi

Figure ES-4. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Federal Coal Resources by Coal Reliability Type

xii


Section 1Introduction

1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONAs the energy demand of the nation continues to grow, the coal resources of the United States are expected to continue to help meet these needs. According to the Energy Infor-mation Administration (EIA), the United States produced approximately 1,161 MST of coal and consumed about 1,114 MST during 2006. Approximately 92 percent of the total coal consumption was used in electricity generation accounting for almost half of the nation’s electricity. The Western Coal Region,1 comprising predominately Federal resources, pro-duced 672 MST, over half of the total coal production for the entire U.S. in 2006.2 Produc-tion from the Western Coal Region is forecasted to increase by over 460 MST over the next 23 years (2030).3

Based on recent USGS assessments, Federal coal resources in the United States total 957,000 MST.4 The Powder River Basin contains 58 percent of total Federal coal, or over 550,000 MST (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1. Assessed Federal Coal Resources

1 Defi ned by EIA as Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Eastern Region is defi ned as Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

2 Available on the EIA website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html.

3 Ibid.

4 Available on the USGS website: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/regional_studies/fedlands/index.html. Note that the fi gures cited exclude unmined coal currently under development in the Powder River Basin.

Basin/Region Federal Coal(MST)* Percent

Powder River 550,206 57.5Williston 27,200 2.8Hanna 2,350 0.2Green River 1,200 0.1Colorado Plateau 361,860 37.8

Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain 10,350 1.1Appalachian 4,051 0.4Total Coal 957,217 100* Million Short TonsSource: USGS (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/regional_studies/fedlands/index.html) and BLM

2


It is clear that Federal lands will be an important future source of energy. According to EIA data, the Powder River Basin is currently supplying 38 percent of the United States coal production (Figure 1-1), and, in recent years, 88 percent of coal production from Federal lands.

The Inventory examines the Pow-der River Basin, the largest pro-ducing area of Federal coal. The Inventory encompasses almost 7 million acres of land. Of this, 5.4 million acres are under Federal management, of which 4.5 million underlie non-Federal surface (split estates lands).

The coal basins assessed by the USGS are shown in Figure 1-2. The PRB study area is shown in Figure 1-3a and the PRB planning areas are shown in Figure 1-3b.

A full set of acronyms used in this report, as well as a glossary, can be found in Appendices 1 and 2, respectively.

1.1 Background

With the increasing demand for cleaner burning coals, the low-sul-fur coals of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana are expected to continue to be in high

demand for the foreseeable future. Developing these coal resources, while mitigating the environmental impacts and maintaining the BLM and FS’s multiple use land management goals, continues to be a unique challenge.

The restrictions that constrain access to Federal lands are frequently a complex set of re-quirements that can preclude mining or increase costs and delay activity in order to achieve other important policy objectives, such as environmental protection and maximizing public benefi t from revenues in return for rights to extract resources from Federal lands. Restric-tions and impediments include areas unavailable for leasing and areas where the coal can be leased, but with no surface mining allowed. There are also limitations on activities due to a variety of environmental considerations, typically manifested as leasing restrictions.

Figure 1-1. United States Coal Production (2004-2005)

Figure 1-2. USGS Assessed Coal Basins


3

Figure 1-3a. Powder River Basin Study Area

4


Figure 1-3b. Powder River Basin Planning Areas


5

Section 437 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required a study, as a cooperative effort between Department of Energy, Department of the Interior (DOI), and Department of Agri-culture (USDA), which was to include an analysis of coal resources for Federal lands in the United States. The text of Section 437 is set forth below.

1.2 The EPAct 437 Coal Inventory

SEC. 437. INVENTORY REQUIREMENT

(a) REVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS—

(1) IN GENERAL—The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation

with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary [of Energy], shall review coal assessments and other available data to identify—

(A) Federal lands with coal resources that are available for development

(B) the extent and nature of any restrictions on the development of coal re-sources on Federal lands identifi ed under paragraph (1); and

(C) with respect to areas of such lands for which suffi cient data exists, re-sources of compliant coal and supercompliant coal.

(2) DEFINITIONS—For purposes of this subsection—

(A) the term ‘‘compliant coal’’ means coal that contains not less than 1.0 and not more than 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU; and

(B) the term ‘‘supercompliant coal’’ means coal that contains less than 1.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU.

(b) COMPLETION AND UPDATING OF THE INVENTORY—The Secretary [of Energy]—

(1) shall complete the inventory under subsection (a) by not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act; and

(2) shall update the inventory as the availability of data and developments in technology warrant.

(c) REPORT—The Secretary [of Energy] shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and make publicly available—

(1) a report containing the inventory under this section, by not later than 2 years after the effective date of this section; and

(2) each update of such inventory.

6


1.3 Approach

A Steering Committee, comprising representatives from the participating agencies, was re-sponsible for designing and overseeing the completion of the Inventory. The EPAct Section 437 Coal Inventory is a review of Federal coal resource assessments and the constraints on their development. This Inventory reviews coal resources within the Powder River Basin in northeast Wyoming and southeast Montana. The Powder River Basin represents 58 percent of the total Federal resources currently assessed. Further, of coal production from Federal lands, 88 percent comes from the PRB, and the Basin is also the most active location for Federal leasing. The Bureau of Land Management received eight lease appli-cations for 26,050 acres containing 3,400 MST of coal in the PRB alone in 2006 (more than three years of the national annual average consumption). Finally, because of the focus on its coal and coalbed methane development, the PRB is the location of the most complete datasets for surface and resources information.

The study area is defi ned primarily by the aggregation of the USGS coal resource as-sessment units within the Powder River Basin (see Figure 1-3a). In this study, the coal resource, Federal land status, and coal access constraints data for this area have been incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) that allows derivative mapping and statistical analysis. The results are presented in this report.A fundamental product of this Inventory is the GIS database containing numerous layers of geographic data. While the surface data used in the Inventory are accurate, an important caution applies to the use and interpretation of the undeveloped resources data: the pre-cise locations and sizes of recoverable accumulations of undeveloped coal resources on Federal lands are unknown.

The National Coal Resource Assessment (NCRA) project is a multi-year effort by the USGS Energy Resources Program to identify, characterize, and assess the coal resources that will supply a major part of the Nation’s energy needs during the next few decades. Assessment results are based on known or estimated geologic input parameters provided by knowl-edgeable geologists. Because of the uncertainty associated with input parameters, the as-sessment result is reported within coal reliability categories within the assessment unit. For these reasons, this Inventory does not imply that the locations and sizes of accumulations of undeveloped coal resources are known to occur under specifi c land parcels.

Section 437 of EPAct calls for the identifi cation of compliant and supercompliant coal re-sources where suffi cient data exist. Compliant and supercompliant coal resources are defi ned in terms of sulfur dioxide content per million BTU. USGS information indicates that suffi cient data do not exist to categorize the resources in such a manner. Where sulfur dioxide information exists, the data are highly variable. Moreover, sulfur dioxide data are sparse with respect to the undeveloped coal resources. For coal resources in the PRB,


7

these circumstances are clearly evidenced by the data published by the USGS.5 Given these constraints, the coal resources were not analyzed in terms of compliant and super-compliant categories.

1.4 Roles of the Agencies Pertaining to This Inventory

Section 437 of EPAct designated responsibility for preparing the Inventory as a coopera-tive effort between the DOE, DOI and USDA. The Interagency Steering Committee is responsible for providing guidance for conducting the studies, recommending direction to the consulting fi rm retained to support the Inventory,6 making decisions concerning critical parameters, reviewing the methods and results, and publishing the report.

The DOE is the lead agency for the Inventory and contributes its expertise and experience in guiding the design and analysis process for the Inventory.

The BLM, part of the DOI, manages all Federal leasable minerals (e.g., oil, gas and coal) and maintains the coal lease restriction information developed during land use planning for lands under its jurisdiction, and land status data for all Federally owned lands within the United States.

The USGS, also a bureau of the DOI, conducts assessments of undeveloped coal resourc-es. The primary source of the coal resource information used in this study is the NCRA.

The Secretary of Agriculture, through the FS, provides coal restriction information devel-oped during broad-scale analysis for leasing of lands within the National Forest System.

During the course of this study, members of the Steering Committee and personnel from the fi rm contracted to support the Inventory visited fi eld offi ces within the Powder River Basin. BLM and FS personnel from four offi ces (Buffalo, WY BLM FO, Casper, WY BLM FO, Miles City, MT BLM FO, and Thunder Basin National Grassland) participated in these visits.7 The purpose of the site visits was to inform BLM and FS offi cials about the study, to solicit input concerning coal leasing restrictions and other issues of concern regarding coal development, and to collect requisite information and data. As described in Section 2, parameter input from these offi cials was critical to the study. Data were collected before, during, and following the fi eld visits.

5 For more information on Coal Quality in the PRB, consult USGS’s Professional Paper 1625-A Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Region (1999), Chapter PQ.

6 The contractor is Enegis, LLC, of Fairfax, VA. They have engaged Premier Data Services of Englewood, CO as a sub-contractor.

7 Offi cials at Custer National Forest were consulted to verify the status of their coal leasing prior to fi eld visits. Based on their input, a visit to the Forest offi ce was not necessary.

8


1.5 Intended Use

This Inventory is designed to be useful to a wide range of interests. In a broad sense, it gives a picture of where coal resources in the Powder River Basin are estimated to occur and a quantifi cation of statutory and administrative constraints on development.

The highly detailed Federal land status data, along with the coal resource data, are avail-able for additional analyses by Congress, industry, environmental organizations, and other interested parties. Land withdrawals and coal lease requirements protect or mitigate ad-verse impacts to other valuable land resources.

Section 2Methodology

9

2.0 METHODS

The EPAct Section 437 Coal Inventory assesses the issue of access to Federal coal by cal-culating the areas and coal tonnages associated with Federal lands (including non-Federal surface interests overlying Federal coal mineral estates [split estates]) in each of several ac-cess categories in an access constraint hierarchy. The Inventory quantifi es coal resources underlying the Federal lands in each access category, while at the same time accounting for restriction exceptions and the accessibility of resources utilizing underground extraction techniques. A complex geospatial model, termed the EPAct coal model, has been created to support the DOE, BLM, USGS, and FS in their efforts to fulfi ll Public Law (P.L.) 109-58, Sec-tion 437 (Energy Policy Act of 2005), Inventory Requirement.

The study area of the Inventory is delineated by aggregating the areas of the three USGS coal assessment units located within the PRB of Wyoming and Montana. The Inventory in-volves the compilation and geographic analysis of three independent datasets:

1. Federal surface and coal mineral estates;

2. Coal leasing and mining access restraints, as defi ned at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3420.1-4, and coal planning screens in applicable BLM and FS land use plans, and discussions in Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs); and

3. Coal resource data published in the NCRA—Rocky Mountains and Great Plains.8

It should be noted that this Inventory is a “snapshot” in time and depicts the regulatory sta-tus at the time the study was completed. For example, it is recognized that wildlife habitat patterns continually change, and that restrictions may have to be reevaluated at the time site-specifi c National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is conducted for a coal lease application. As planning efforts continue and new data become available, the PRB can be updated in future assessments.

2.1 Procedures for Collecting and Preparing Land Status and Coal Development Restrictions

2.1.1 Federal Land Status

2.1.1.1 Sources of Land Status Data

The primary source of Federal land status data is the BLM’s Legacy Rehost-2000 (LR 2000) Status Dataset.

2.1.1.2 Land Status Data Preparation

These data, which can be stored in alphanumeric format, were converted for this Inventory into a GIS theme by using commercially available CarteView software. The software inter-

8 USGS Professional Paper 1625-A. 1999 Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region.

10


polates the legal descriptions contained in the Status Dataset against a public land survey GIS theme derived from either the BLM’s Geographic Coordinate Database (GCDB) or other sources such as digitized USGS 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps.

In this effort, assisted by Premier Data Services of Denver, Colorado, data obtained from the Federal government covering the geography of Federal lands and Federal coal estates in the defi ned extent of the PRB were collected, converted and incorpo-rated with ownership data into up-to-date maps. Where possible, the Federal lands status was converted from the BLM LR-2000 Data Bases. Federal mineral estate data includes split estates, where available, and all land patents, exchanges or ac-quired lands where the U.S. retained all minerals and coal only.

A map of the Federal land status for the study area is presented in Figure 2-1. 2.1.1.3 Land Status Data – Related Caveats

The following precautions are advised when reviewing this Inventory: The land status data are generally spatially accurate down to 40 acres.

The GIS fi les, created using the processes described in detail in Appendix 3, were in-terpolated from the legal land descriptions contained in the BLM’s LR-2000 database. If a legal description referenced a small survey lot or tract by number, a nominal location was mapped through a process that referenced the Legal Land Description dataset. This dataset is limited to a 40-acre description and therefore carries a minor degree of generalization in complex areas. Isolated parcels of less than 40 acres were not included in the Inventory.

This mapping process uses public land survey data derived from various sources. The spatial location of the land status parcels so derived matches the accuracy of the survey data.

Some land status GIS data are restricted from the public domain by agency request. Such data were used in the analyses presented in this report, but are not contained in the public datasets.

For purposes of this Inventory, Federal lands include split estates. This Inventory includes over 4.5 million acres of split estate land. In cases of split estates where the Federal govern-ment holds a partial interest in the mineral estate, the Federal government was assumed to hold the total mineral interest for purposes of the analysis.9

9 Note that areas do exist within PRB that have Federal surface with private mineral ownership. Although these areas are included in the analysis, they are very small in area and cannot be seen in Figure 2-1.

•

•

•

•

•


11

Figure 2-1. Federal Land Status Map, Powder River Basin Study Area

12


2.1.2 Federal Coal Lease Requirements

2.1.2.1 Coal Leasing Decisions

Leasing decisions for Federal coal are guided by Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and Forest Plans (FPs), where the goal is to determine areas acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing.

The regulations that govern land use planning for coal are found in 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e), which state: “The major land use planning decision concerning the coal resource shall be the identifi cation of areas acceptable for further consideration for leasing, which shall be identi-fi ed by the screening process…”

There are four planning screens that must be applied as described below.

1. Determine areas of Federal coal with development potential (43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1)). A Call for Coal Resource and Other Resource Information is issued to encourage companies, State and local governments, and general public to submit data (43 CFR 3420.1-2). Ideally, this occurs early in the scoping process for the land use plan and can be combined with a Notice of Intent to conduct land use planning or issue identifi cation. Based on the response to the call and other avail-able coal publications, and exploration and development data, the BLM defi nes the area considered to have development potential within the life of the land use plan. The BLM uses economics in its decision to focus in on the areas with most poten-tial for development. The BLM is not required to include all areas with Federal coal simply because they meet USGS classifi cation criteria as a coal resource.

2. Apply unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3420.1-4 (e)(2) and 43 CFR 3461). There are 20 unsuitability criteria as listed in 43 CFR 3461. The criteria mostly come from Sec. 522 (a, b, and e) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA),

Table 2-1. Federal Land Acreage by Management Agency

Federal Surface Management Agency InventoryAcreage

Bureau of Land Management 4,815,192 Federal surface/Federal mineral ownership 628,425 Non-Federal surface/Federal mineral ownership 4,186,679 Federal surface/Non-Federal mineral ownership 88

USDA Forest Service 610,395 Federal surface/Federal mineral ownership 347,536 Non-Federal surface/Federal mineral ownership 259,532 Federal surface/Non-Federal mineral ownership 3,327

Bureau of Reclamation 70 Federal surface/Federal mineral ownership 70

Total Federal Land 5,425,657


13

which prohibits or conditions mining of certain lands in order to protect other re-sources. The 20 unsuitability criteria are listed in Table 2-2. The criteria have specifi c exemptions and exceptions that may allow for leasing while still stipulating protection of the resource (see Section 2.6). Some resources, however, remain unsuitable for leasing by law. The criteria only apply to “surface coal mining op-erations” as defi ned in 43 CFR 3400.0-5 (mm) and 43 CFR 3461.1, which defi nes surface coal mining operations as “activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a surface coal mine or surface operations and surface impacts incident to an underground mine”. The criteria either can be applied during the general land use plan or the National Environmental Policy Act assessment for a specifi c lease application.

3. Apply multiple use confl ict analysis (43 CFR 3420.1-4 (e)(3)). The regulations state that this screen “shall place particular emphasis on protecting” air and water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, sole source aquifers, units of National Park Sys-tem, National Wildlife Refuge System, National System of Trails, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and other important or unique resource values. Examples may include: oil and gas confl icts (such as stipulations for Coalbed Natural Gas confl ict administration zones), values identifi ed in Sec. 522(a)(3) of SMCRA, areas incompatible with State or local land use plans, and fragile or historic lands where operations could signifi cantly damage important historic, cultural, scientifi c, and esthetic values (e.g., paleontological sites).

4. Consult with qualifi ed surface owners (43 CFR 3420.1-4 (e)(4)). This regulation applies only to surface mining associated with split estates. Criteria in 43 CFR 3400.0-5 are used to determine if surface owners are qualifi ed (i.e., hold title to surface, have their principal place of residence on the land, personally conduct farm or ranching operations on the land or receive directly a signifi cant portion of income from those operations, and have met these conditions for at least three years). If a “signifi cant” number of surface owners in an area express preference against mining, the area will be considered unacceptable for surface mining and only minable by underground techniques, unless no acceptable alternative areas are available to meet a regional leasing level (there are currently no regional leas-ing levels in the Powder River Basin and leasing is conducted under the lease-by-application process). It should be noted that the consultation process is not the same as surface owner consent, which provides a qualifi ed surface owner over a split estate with a veto power over whether or not to allow a surface coal mining op-erations lease (43 CFR 3427) be issued; in effect, consultation is a “pre-screen.”

After the unsuitability, multiple use, and surface owner consultation screens are applied to the Federal coal with development potential and affected areas are deleted, the remaining Federal coal lands are carried forward in the land use plan as “acceptable for further consid-eration for leasing” in accordance with 43 CFR 3420.1-8 (a).

14


2.1.2.2 Sources of Lease Restriction Data

The coal leasing and mining access constraints that derive from the CFRs are applied through the Federal surface management agency’s land use plans, e.g., RMPs for the BLM and FPs for the Forest Service. These plans are produced and maintained by their respective agen-cies on a fi eld offi ce jurisdictional basis (in the case of the BLM), or on a National Forest/Grassland basis (in the case of the FS). Land use planning documents are revised every ten to fi fteen years, or on an as-needed basis, but may be amended to address specifi c land use issues.10 The documents applicable to the Inventory are listed in Table 2-3.

10 In certain instances, an RMP or FP may be in the revision process, but the management agency already imple-ments restrictions on a de facto level prior to becoming part of the offi cial management document. Therefore, certain restrictions on coal leasing are included in this Inventory on offi ce advisement.

Table 2-2. Coal Leasing Unsuitability CriteriaUnsuitability

Criterion Description

1 Federal Land Systems and Federal lands in incorporated towns2 Federal lands within rights-of-way or easements on federally-owned surface

(such as railroads)3 Buffer zones for public roads, cemeteries, schools, churches, public buildings and parks, and occupied

dwellings4 Wilderness study areas5 Scenic lands designated Class I by Visual Resource Management (VRM) analysis6 Lands being used for scientifi c studies7 Lands on the National Register of Historic Places8 Designated natural areas and National Natural Landmarks9 Habitat for Federal threatened and endangered plant and animal species

10 Habitat for State threatened and endangered plant and animal species11 Bald and golden eagle nests and buffer zones12 Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas13 Falcon cliff nesting sites and buffer zones14 High priority habitat for migratory bird species of high Federal interest15 Essential habitat for animal and plant species of high interest to State

(such as sage grouse strutting grounds)16 100-year fl oodplains that pose a substantial threat of loss of life or property if mined17 Municipal watersheds18 Natural Resource Waters plus a ¼ mile buffer zone from outer banks19 Alluvial valley fl oors (AVFs) where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming. Includes

areas outside AVFs where mining would materially damage water quantity or quality in surface or underground water systems supplying AVFs.

20 Criteria proposed by a State or Tribe and adopted by DOI


15

Hardcopy and digital data showing the mapped access constraint areas were collected from BLM and FS offi ces within the study area. Much of the lease data are maintained by the agencies as GIS data layers (digital map fi les). Some offi ces, particularly where the planning effort pre-dated the widespread availability of GIS technology, maintain this information in the form of hardcopy maps or AutoCAD fi les. For the Inventory, these maps were converted to a GIS.

2.1.2.3 Lease Requirements Data Preparation

Most of the lease restriction data preparation consisted of digitizing and compiling the gath-ered data into multi-layered digital map fi les. Federal Geographic Data Committee Stan-dards (FGDC)-compliant supporting documentation (metadata) for the resulting GIS layers was also created.This Inventory concerns only Federal lands within the aggregate resource assessment unit boundaries of the study area, which are based on geology as defi ned in the USGS NCRA. Consequently, the land status and restriction digital map fi les, which correspond to Federal land management agency jurisdiction boundaries, were clipped using GIS to fi t within each of the study area boundaries. Data contained within the compiled digital map fi les were then queried for unique leasing restriction values. The results were saved as separate map fi les. Each digital map fi le represents a unique restriction value. For a description of the specifi c data preparation steps, see Appendix 3.2.1.2.4 Lease Requirements Data – Related Caveats

The following precautions are advised when reviewing this study:

All restrictions for which GIS data were available from the Federal land management agencies were used in the analysis. Most of the restrictions within the study areas were available in GIS data formats, but not all. Any inaccuracies that may come from incomplete GIS data are considered minor in terms of the scope of the Inventory.

Many restrictions not available in GIS format were digitized. Any resulting inaccura-cies due to this process are likely to have insignifi cant impacts upon the analysis.

•

•

Table 2-3. Land Use Plans in the EPAct 437 Coal Inventory

Jurisdiction Land Use Plan YearPublished

Buffalo, WY BLM Buffalo RMP Record of Decision (plus 2001 Buffalo RMP Amendment) 1985

Casper, WY BLM

RMP and EIS for the Casper Field Offi ce Planning Area – Draft (on offi ce advisement) 2006Little Thunder Record of Decision (ROD) 2004North Antelope/Rochelle (NARO) North ROD 2004North Antelope/Rochelle (NARO) South ROD 2004West Antelope ROD 2004West Roundup ROD 2004

Miles City, MT BLM Powder River Resource Area Management Plan (RAMP) – Maintenance Version (plus 1994 Miles City Oil & Gas Amendment) 1985

Thunder Basin NG Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and RMP 2001

16


Neither hardcopy nor digital maps were available for some restrictions. A total of 3 restrictions, or 1.8 percent, of the 165 total restrictions did not have GIS data avail-able (see Section 2.3.1.1 for further discussion). In the absence of the data, this impact cannot be quantifi ed, but is believed to be small.

• The lease restriction data are generally accurate to a minimum of 40 acres.

• Some lease restriction GIS data are restricted from the public domain by agency request. Such data were used in the analysis but are not contained in the public datasets.

2.2 Procedures for Collecting and Preparing Coal Resource Data

2.2.1 Sources of Coal Resource Data

The USGS 2000 National Coal Resource Assessment was the source of data for this Inven-tory. The assessment units represent the three most signifi cant coal zones within the PRB that are readily accessible for extraction.

GIS data for the coal resources have been provided to the project by the USGS in the form of GIS isopach and overburden thickness themes for the following three assessment units (AUs) within the Power River Basin:

1. Wyodak-Anderson

2. Knobloch

3. Rosebud-Robinson

Figure 2-2 shows a map of the PRB and the three AUs, including overlap areas between the Knobloch and Wyodak-Anderson AUs. Note that areas currently under development (leased coal or coal resources under Lease by Application through 2006), which comprise an estimated 11,600 MST, as shown in Table 2-4, are excluded from the Inventory. These resources are excluded because the environmental work for that portion of the resource has already been performed or is under administrative review. As such, the Inventory exam-ines the subset of the resource base for which the fi nal environmental work has yet to be performed.

•


17

Figure 2-2. USGS Assessment Units in the Powder River Basin

18


Table 2-4. Coal Reserves Under Lease By Application and Leased Coal Reserves Remaining to be Mined in the PRB as of September 30, 2006

In addition to these geographic data, USGS has provided detailed resource totals in the form of total MST of coal within each category of coal thickness, within each category of overbur-den thickness, and by county, for all three assessment units. The USGS Coal Resources As-sessment data are shown in Table 2-5, and the accompanying maps showing overburden11 and coal thickness are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.

11 Note that where coal zones overlap the map depicts the depth to the shallower zone.

Coal Development Status Wyoming(MST)

Montana(MST)

Total(MST)

Unmined Coal Under Lease 6,476 458 6,934Lease by Application 4,513 109 4,622Total Unmined Coal Under Development 10,989 566 11,555

Wyodak-Anderson Coal Resources

State County Overburden thickness

Net coal thickness

Reliabity categories (distance from control point)Total (MST)Measured

(<1/4 mi)Indicated

(1/4-3/4 mi)Inferred

(3/4-3 mi)Hypothetical

(>3 mi)Montana POWDER RIVER 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.42 1 19 4 25

5-10 ft 2.3 15 110 13 140 10-20 ft 59 260 450 32 800 20-40 ft 220 930 670 93 1,900 >40 ft 200 730 760 40 1,700

0-100 ft total 490 1,900 2,000 180 4,600 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 0 3.8 0.52 4.3

5-10 ft 0.55 6.6 39 4.3 51 10-20 ft 2.0 47 140 14 200 20-40 ft 30 180 370 50 630 >40 ft 130 730 730 7.1 1,600

100-200 ft total 160 970 1,300 75 2,500 200-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 0 0.7 0 0.70

5-10 ft 0 2.0 8.9 1.4 12 10-20 ft 0 3.4 27 9.2 40 20-40 ft 9.5 88 180 24 300 >40 ft 200 1,100 2,200 0 3,500

200-500 ft total 210 1,100 2,400 34 3,800 >500 ft >40 ft 0 0.53 0 0 0.53 >500 ft total 0 0.53 0 0 0.53

POWDER RIVER total 860 4,100 5,700 290 11,000 ROSEBUD 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.38 0.47 6.3 1.5 8.6

5-10 ft 11 31 66 30 140 20-40 ft 29 120 180 0 320 >40 ft 62 330 220 0 610

0-100 ft total 120 590 610 56 1,400

Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table


19



Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Montana ROSEBUD 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 0.46 4.2 0.094 4.8

5-10 ft 2.4 15 24 8.3 50 10-20 ft 7.2 34 79 16 140 20-40 ft 9.4 89 110 0 210 >40 ft 75 340 340 0 750

100-200 ft total 94 470 560 25 1,200 200-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 0 0.61 0 0.61

5-10 ft 0.097 6.2 9.6 4.0 20 10-20 ft 0 20 61 7.0 89 20-40 ft 3.4 3.9 19 0 26 >40 ft 11 82 27 0 120

200-500 ft total 15 110 120 11 250 ROSEBUD total 230 1,200 1,300 92 2,800

Montana total 4,700 20,000 17,000 380 42,000 Wyoming CAMPBELL 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 3.6 9.6 57 12 83

5-10 ft 24 36 83 33 180 10-20 ft 140 140 300 32 620 20-40 ft 380 780 1,100 0 2,300 >40 ft 1,900 4,400 2,900 420 9,600

0-100 ft total 2,500 5,300 4,500 490 13,000 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 1.1 5.4 14 0.58 21

5-10 ft 6.9 32 31 5.6 76 10-20 ft 55 180 140 2.7 380 20-40 ft 290 880 660 3.3 1,800 >40 ft 3,200 6,800 1,800 0 12,000

100-200 ft total 3,500 7,900 2,600 12 14,000 200-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 3.5 9.5 5.3 0.73 19

5-10 ft 31 49 23 0.96 100 10-20 ft 120 360 200 0 680 20-40 ft 540 1,400 830 0 2,800 >40 ft 9,300 29,000 11,000 20 49,000

200-500 ft total 10,000 30,000 12,000 22 52,000 >500 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.25 3.8 9.0 0 13

5-10 ft 2.30 18 59 0 79 10-20 ft 1.30 37 160 0 200 20-40 ft 120 390 1,400 49 1,900 >40 ft 13,000 57,000 120,000 6,900 200,000

>500 ft total 13,000 58,000 130,000 6,900 200,000 CAMPBELL total 29,000 100,000 140,000 7,500 280,000 CONVERSE 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.10 0.36 1.8 190 200

5-10 ft 1.6 21 80 620 720 10-20 ft 41 280 570 380 1,300 20-40 ft 92 440 650 22 1,200 >40 ft 46 100 280 0 430

0-100 ft total 180 850 1,600 1,200 3,800 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.33 1.1 15 30 46

5-10 ft 1.4 17 89 120 230 10-20 ft 47 230 370 54 700

Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table (continued)

20


Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table (continued)Wyodak-Anderson Coal Resources


Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Wyoming CONVERSE 20-40 ft 76 360 440 88 960

>40 ft 65 270 100 0 440 100-200 ft total 190 880 1,000 300 2,400 200-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 1.6 7.3 92 92 190

5-10 ft 20 97 290 710 1,100 10-20 ft 70 350 960 530 1,900 20-40 ft 41 260 730 230 1,200 >40 ft 150 480 230 0 860

200-500 ft total 280 1,200 2,300 1,600 5,300 >500 ft 2.5-5 ft 2.3 14 16 2.4 35

5-10 ft 20 120 430 430 1,000 10-20 ft 22 150 590 1,000 1,800 20-40 ft 1.3 20 350 340 710 >40 ft 0 0 190 0 190

>500 ft total 45 300 1,600 1,800 3,700 CONVERSE total 700 3,200 6,500 4,900 15,000 JOHNSON 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 2.3 3.3 10 16

5-10 ft 0 5.6 13 9.9 28 10-20 ft 5.4 15 52 26 99 20-40 ft 33 62 42 10 150 >40 ft 32 82 150 0 270

0-100 ft total 71 170 260 56 560 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 2.3 2.0 10 15

5-10 ft 0 4.0 4.3 12 20 10-20 ft 2.0 5.3 17 8.5 33 20-40 ft 9.2 42 100 7.9 160 >40 ft 30 130 220 0 380

100-200 ft total 41 180 350 39 610 200-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 0 2.9 4.7 36 44

5-10 ft 0.036 7.0 17 85 110 10-20 ft 5.6 25 74 38 140 20-40 ft 23 72 440 23 560 >40 ft 32 310 1,300 16 1,600

200-500 ft total 61 410 1,800 200 2,500 >500 ft 2.5-5 ft 1.6 6.6 33 88 130

5-10 ft 5.7 49 500 420 970 10-20 ft 20 130 1,500 1,200 2,900 20-40 ft 85 620 5,000 3,200 9,000 >40 ft 6,800 32,000 96,000 7,700 140,000

>500 ft total 6,900 33,000 100,000 13,000 160,000 JOHNSON total 7,100 34,000 110,000 13,000 160,000 SHERIDAN 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.053 8.2 2.2 22 33

5-10 ft 12 40 11 37 100 10-20 ft 36 170 120 40 370 20-40 ft 45 230 420 5.5 700 >40 ft 100 350 740 0 1,200

0-100 ft total 200 790 1,300 110 2,400


21



Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Wyoming SHERIDAN 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 1.4 4.1 2.0 15 23

5-10 ft 4.6 11 14 51 81 10-20 ft 22 62 90 54 230 20-40 ft 98 410 660 46 1,200 >40 ft 290 620 850 81 1,800

100-200 ft total 420 1,100 1,600 250 3,400 200-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 1.4 8.1 7.6 16 33

5-10 ft 6.7 23 20 49 98 10-20 ft 34 160 530 180 910 20-40 ft 260 1,100 3,400 370 5,100 >40 ft 840 3,700 6,500 220 11,000

200-500 ft total 1,100 4,900 11,000 840 17,000 >500 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.51 3.0 4.7 87 95

5-10 ft 4.9 33 73 580 690 10-20 ft 23 140 760 1,600 2,500 20-40 ft 120 790 7,800 5,200 14,000 >40 ft 310 1,800 8,600 1,300 12,000

>500 ft total 450 2,700 17,000 8,700 29,000 SHERIDAN total 2,200 9,600 31,000 9,900 52,000

Wyoming total 39,000 150,000 290,000 35,000 510,000 Grand total (MST) 44,000 170,000 300,000 36,000 550,000

Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table (continued)

Knobloch Assessment Unit


Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Montana POWDER RIVER 0-100 ft 10-20 ft 1.8 7.8 10.0 0.0 20.0

20-30 ft 33.0 88.0 100.0 0.0 220.0 30-40 ft 23.0 21.0 17.0 0.0 61.0 40-50 ft 20.0 44.0 8.4 0.0 73.0 50-100 ft 110.0 360.0 140.0 0.0 610.0

0-100 ft total 190.0 520.0 280.0 0.0 980.0 100-200 ft 10-20 ft 0.27 0.0 34.0 2.0 36.0

20-30 ft 17.0 46.0 52.0 0.0 110.0 30-40 ft 14.0 20.0 18.0 0.0 52.0 40-50 ft 43.0 56.0 49.0 0.0 150.0 50-100 ft 310.0 720.0 260.0 0.9 1,300.0

100-200 ft total 380.0 840.0 410.0 2.9 1,600.0 200-300 ft 10-20 ft 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.11 35.0

20-30 ft 6.7 14.0 39.0 0.0 59.0 30-40 ft 0.0 11.0 12.0 0.0 23.0 40-50 ft 6.7 23.0 72.0 0.0 100.0 50-100 ft 170.0 460.0 210.0 0.0 840.0

200-300 ft total 180.0 510.0 370.0 0.11 1,100.0 300-400 ft 10-20 ft 0.0 1.4 37.0 0.0 38.0

20-30 ft 1.7 5.9 15.0 1.5 24.0 30-40 ft 0.0 2.2 4.9 0.0 7.1

22


Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table (continued)Knobloch Assessment Unit


Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Montana POWDER RIVER 40-50 ft 0.0 0.67 11.0 0.0 12.0

50-100 ft 9.3 64.0 140.0 0.0 220.0 300-400 ft total 11.0 75.0 210.0 1.5 300.0 400-500 ft 10-20 ft 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.0

20-30 ft 1.6 0.41 6.0 0.082 8.1 30-40 ft 0.0 0.0 0.29 0.0 0.29 40-50 ft 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 50-100 ft 0.0 6.0 66.0 0.0 72.0

400-500 ft total 1.6 6.4 92.0 0.082 100.0 500-1000 ft 10-20 ft 0.0 2.1 24.0 0.0 26.0

20-30 ft 0.0 0.0 0.74 0.0 0.74 40-50 ft 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 50-100 ft 0.0 0.4 16.0 0.0 17.0

500-1000 ft total 0.0 2.4 53.0 0.0 55.0 POWDER RIVER total 770.0 1,900.0 1,400.0 4.6 4,100.0 ROSEBUD 0-100 ft 5-10 ft 0.19 0.30 0.0 0.0 0.48

10-20 ft 12.0 56.0 35.0 0.0 100.0 20-30 ft 26.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 30-40 ft 5.7 22.0 9.8 0.0 38.0 40-50 ft 13.0 29.0 12.0 0.0 53.0 50-100 ft 11.0 81.0 130.0 0.0 230.0

0-100 ft total 68.0 250.0 190.0 0.0 510.0 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.0 0.30 0.0 0.0 0.3

5-10 ft 1.1 8.3 7.8 0.0 17.0 10-20 ft 21.0 53.0 24.0 0.0 98.0 20-30 ft 32.0 39.0 4.4 0.0 76.0 30-40 ft 2.7 14.0 0.2 0.0 17.0 40-50 ft 5.2 5.9 0.6 0.0 12.0 50-100 ft 31.0 82.0 28.0 0.0 140.0

100-200 ft total 93.0 200.0 64.0 0.0 360.0 200-300 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.24 0.06 0 0 0.3

5-10 ft 0.4 8.8 17.0 0.0 26.0 10-20 ft 9.4 46.0 59.0 0.0 110.0 20-30 ft 3.2 17.0 2.1 0.0 22.0 30-40 ft 2.1 17.0 0.61 0.0 20.0 40-50 ft 0.0 0.35 0.0 0.0 0.4 50-100 ft 17.0 78.0 15.0 0.0 110.0

200-300 ft total 32.0 170.0 94.0 0.0 290.0 300-400 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.078 0.56 0.12 0.0 0.75

5-10 ft 2.8 9.6 38.0 0.0 50.0 10-20 ft 4.1 29.0 61.0 0.0 94.0 20-30 ft 0.98 11.0 1.7 0.0 14.0 30-40 ft 0.0 3.7 2.5 0.0 6.2 50-100 ft 4.4 24.0 3.3 0.0 32.0

300-400 ft total 12.0 78.0 110.0 0.0 200.0 400-500 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.42 1.7 0.74 0.0 2.9

5-10 ft 1.9 11.0 26.0 0.0 39.0


23

Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table (continued)Knobloch Assessment Unit


Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Montana ROSEBUD 10-20 ft 1.3 17.0 60.0 0.0 78.0

20-30 ft 0.0 2.9 1.9 0.0 4.8 30-40 ft 0.0 0.44 2.2 0.0 2.6 50-100 ft 1.2 9.3 0.0 0.0 11.0

400-500 ft total 4.8 42.0 91.0 0.0 140.0 500-1000 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.10 0.79 0.076 0.0 0.97

5-10 ft 1.0 20.0 120.0 0.042 140.0 10-20 ft 2.3 22.0 180.0 4.2 210.0 20-30 ft 0.37 2.0 3.0 0.0 5.4 30-40 ft 0.0 0.0 0.18 0.0 0.18 50-100 ft 0.0 0.66 0.0 0.0 0.66

500-1000 ft total 3.8 45.0 300.0 4.2 360.0 1000-1500 ft 5-10 ft 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0

10-20 ft 0.0 0.16 4.4 0.0 4.5 20-30 ft 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2

1000-1500 ft total 0.0 0.16 26.0 0.0 27.0 ROSEBUD total 210.0 780.0 880.0 4.2 1,900.0 Grand total (MST) 980.0 2,700.0 2,300.0 8.8 6,000.0

Rosebud-Robinson Assessment Unit


Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi) Montana BIGHORN 0-100 ft 2.5-5 ft 1.30 2.90 0.02 0.00 4.10

5-10 ft 14.00 36.00 6.90 0.00 57.00 10-20 ft 11.00 110.00 91.00 0.00 210.00 20-40 ft 13.00 150.00 100.00 0.00 260.00

0-100 ft total 39.00 290.00 200.00 0.00 530.00 100-200 ft 2.5-5 ft 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09

5-10 ft 4.40 5.70 0.32 0.00 10.00 10-20 ft 9.90 39.00 5.30 0.00 54.00 20-40 ft 70.00 310.00 92.00 0.00 470.00

100-200 ft total 85.00 350.00 97.00 0.00 540.00 200-500 ft 5-10 ft 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.00

10-20 ft 21.00 61.00 4.50 0.00 87.00 20-40 ft 250.00 890.00 110.00 0.00 1,300.00

200-500 ft total 270.00 950.00 120.00 0.00 1,300.00 500-1000 ft 5-10 ft 2.30 13.00 99.00 17.00 130.00

10-20 ft 34.00 200.00 290.00 0.00 520.00 20-40 ft 28.00 340.00 560.00 0.00 930.00

500-1000 ft total 64.00 560.00 950.00 17.00 1,600.00 >1000 ft 5-10 ft 0.00 0.00 9.40 0.00 9.40

20-40 ft 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 >1000 ft total 0.00 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00

BIGHORN total 460.00 2,200.00 1,600.00 17.00 4,200.00 ROSEBUD 0-100 ft 5-10 ft 2.00 3.60 0.26 0.00 5.80

10-20 ft 11.00 7.50 16.00 1.00 36.00 20-40 ft 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.29

24


Table 2-5. Powder River Basin Coal Resources Table (continued)Rosebud-Robinson Assessment Unit


Net coal thickness


(<1/4 mi)Indicated



(>3 mi)Montana ROSEBUD 0-100 ft total 13.00 11.00 16.00 1.00 42.00

100-200 ft 5-10 ft 3.90 2.60 25.00 22.00 54.00 10-20 ft 12.00 33.00 150.00 27.00 220.00 20-40 ft 1.10 0.46 0.00 0.00 1.60

100-200 ft total 17.00 36.00 180.00 49.00 280.00 200-500 ft 5-10 ft 9.40 77.00 320.00 130.00 540.00

10-20 ft 67.00 430.00 1,600.00 230.00 2,300.00 20-40 ft 88.00 410.00 300.00 0.00 800.00

200-500 ft total 160.00 920.00 2,200.00 360.00 3,600.00 500-1000 ft 5-10 ft 6.20 30.00 79.00 42.00 160.00

10-20 ft 22.00 78.00 950.00 310.00 1,400.00 20-40 ft 16.00 190.00 980.00 35.00 1,200.00

500-1000 ft total 44.00 300.00 2,000.00 380.00 2,700.00 >1000 ft 10-20 ft 0.00 0.00 39.00 5.80 45.00

20-40 ft 0.00 0.00 410.00 7.70 420.00 >1000 ft total 0.00 0.00 450.00 14.00 460.00

ROSEBUD total 240.00 1,300.00 4,800.00 810.00 7,100.00 TREASURE 0-100 ft 5-10 ft 2.00 30.00 19.00 0.00 51.00

10-20 ft 0.00 5.10 1.20 0.00 6.40 20-40 ft 2.70 15.00 1.70 0.00 19.00

0-100 ft total 4.70 50.00 22.00 0.00 76.00 100-200 ft 5-10 ft 13.00 34.00 9.60 0.00 56.00

10-20 ft 24.00 46.00 7.20 0.00 77.00 20-40 ft 22.00 88.00 5.60 0.00 120.00

100-200 ft total 58.00 170.00 22.00 0.00 250.00 200-500 ft 5-10 ft 0.36 3.60 0.00 0.00 4.00

10-20 ft 15.00 150.00 94.00 0.00 260.00 20-40 ft 55.00 210.00 210.00 0.00 470.00

200-500 ft total 70.00 370.00 300.00 0.00 740.00 500-1000 ft 10-20 ft 0.26 3.20 9.40 0.00 13.00

20-40 ft 0.81 7.20 210.00 0.00 210.00 500-1000 ft total 1.10 10.00 220.00 0.00 230.00

TREASURE TOTAL 130.00 600.00 560.00 0.00 1,300.00 Grand total (MST) 830.00 4,000.00 6,900.00 830.00 13,000.00

Source: USGS 1999 National Coal Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region, Prof. Paper 1625-A


25

Figure 2-3. Overburden Thickness above Assessed Coal Zones in the Powder River Basin

26


Figure 2-4. Thickness of Assessed Coal Zones in the Powder River Basin


27

The USGS coal resource data are reported in accordance with varying levels of reliability, based on an area’s proximity to the nearest data point.12 A discussion of the reliability cat-egories is below, followed by a map showing the coal reliability categories in the PRB (Figure 2-5):

Measured Resources. Identifi ed bodies of coal having a high degree of geologic assurance. This includes virgin coal that lies between 0 and 1/4 mile (0.4 km) from a known point of coal thickness.

Indicated Resources. Identifi ed bodies of coal having a moderate degree geologic assur-ance. This includes virgin coal that lies between 1/4 mile (0.4 km) and 3/4 mile (1.2 km) from a known point of coal thickness.

Inferred Resources. Identifi ed bodies of coal having a low degree of geologic assurance. This includes virgin coal that lies between 3/4 mile (1.2 km) and 3 miles (4.8 km) from a known point of coal thickness.

Hypothetical Resources: Coal occurrences having a very low degree of geologic assurance. Tonnage estimates for this category of resources are based on assumed continuity geo-graphically beyond inferred resources (coal beyond a radius of 3 miles or 4.8 km from a known point of coal thickness).

2.3 Data Integration and Spatial Analysis

The EPAct coal model is a customized GIS and database utility that manages all geographic and tabular inputs, performs all required geoprocessing functions, calculates all required da-tabase fi elds, and compiles the Inventory results. The model was created using Environmen-tal Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS v 9.2 and Microsoft Access 2002 functionality. All geographic data are in the form of ESRI 9.2 Geodatabases, and are projected in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 13, North American Datum (NAD) 83 datum. FGDC-com-pliant metadata are provided for all GIS themes. All tabular input data exist in Access tables within the geodatabases. Results are also reported in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

2.3.1 Categorization of Coal Access Constraints

Once all available access constraint GIS data were compiled, the discrete data were spatially overlain into a seamless polygon GIS theme. This geoprocessing component of the model involves unioning individual access constraint themes together one-by-one, progressively combining the geographies and associated data of each theme. Once all access constraints were incorporated, the resultant Model Master theme consisted of geographically unique polygons containing data identifying the individual access constraints present in that geogra-phy. The model then calculates the cumulative effect of the overlapping access constraints within an access categorization hierarchy. The access categorization hierarchy used in this Inventory is listed in Table 2-6, ordered from most to least restrictive.

12 See USGS Circular 891, “Coal Resource Classifi cation System of the U.S. Geological Survey”, by Wood, G.H., Kehn, T.M., Carter, M.D., and Culbertson, W.C., 1983, 65 pages.

28


Figure 2-5. Assessed Coal Resource Reliability Map


29

Level Access Category Comments

1 No Leasing (Statutory/Executive Order), (NLS) Accessibility determined by Law or Executive Order; mining prohibited

2 No Leasing (Administrative), general category (NLA) Accessibility determined by Federal surface management agency; no leasing

3 Possible Leasing (Administrative), Pending Land Use Planning (PL-PLUP)

Status set by Federal surface management agency; no leasing pending planning

4 Possible Leasing (Administrative), Pending Surface Owner Consent (PL-PSOC)

Status set by Federal surface management agency consent or no leasing pending qualifi ed surface owner consent

5 Leasing, No Surface Operations Anticipated/Offset Area (NSOA/OA)

No surface mining operations anticipated due to current technological limitations, or coal reserve areas “sterilized” by offsets

6 Surface Mining Allowed with Mitigation (SUR-MIT) Mining permitted, specialized mitigation plan required (i.e., Confl ict Administration Zones in the PRB etc)

7 Leasing, Standard Lease Terms (SLTs) Mining permitted, mitigation plan required; see Appendix 5 for Standard Restrictions

Table 2-6. Access Categorization Hierarchy

The categorization hierarchy was developed under Steering Committee guidance and comes, in part, from the Federal Coal Screening process, (the four Land Use Planning (LUP) Screens discussed previously in Section 2.1.2.1 (Table 2-7)). Each planning screen comprises a spe-cifi c step in the planning process, and an area cannot be considered for leasing until all four planning screens are complete. Each planning screen identifi es areas that are unsuitable for coal leasing. Lands that have not yet completed the screening process are not considered available for leasing, but could be leased in the future. Land use planning screens have not been applied to these areas because during the land use planning process, no interest was expressed in leasing coal in these areas during the current twenty-year planning horizon. These lands are categorized as Possible Leasing, Pending Land Use Planning (PL-PLUP) in the Inventory. Table 2-7 cross-references the LUP screens with the categorization hierarchy. Note, category differences occur between surface and subsurface mining, as discussed in Section 2.5.

Table 2-7. Coal Land Use Planning Screens with EPAct Categorization

Coal Land UsePlanning Screen Criteria

EPAct Coal Inventory CategorizationSurface

CategorizationSubsurface

CategorizationLUP Screen 1 Identify areas with coal development potential Areas available for leasingLUP Screen 2 Apply the coal unsuitability criteria See Table 2-8LUP Screen 3 Assess multiple land use confl icts 2 5

LUP Screen 4 Consult with qualifi ed surface owners concerning surface mining of underlying Federal coal 2 5

30


Category 4 lands (PL-PSOC) include areas of split estate where qualifi ed surface owner con-sent has not yet been given, but have been through the other planning screens.

Within LUP Screen 2, 20 unsuitability criteria related to environmental, cultural, physical, and biological values are specifi cally addressed. The criteria can be found in Table 2-8, where they are also cross-referenced with the categorization hierarchy.

Table 2-8. Coal Unsuitability Criteria with EPAct Categorization

Unsuitability Criterion Description

EPAct Coal InventoryCategorization

SurfaceCategorization

SubsurfaceCategorization

1 Federal Land Systems and Federal lands in incorporated towns 1 1*2 Federal lands within rights-of-way or easements on federally-

owned surface (such as railroads)2 5

3 Buffer zones for public roads, cemeteries, schools, churches, public buildings and parks, and occupied dwellings

2 5

4 Wilderness study areas 1 15 Scenic lands designated Class I by VRM analysis 2 56 Lands being used for scientifi c studies 2 57 Lands on the National Register of Historic Places 2 58 Designated natural areas and National Natural Landmarks 2 59 Habitat for Federal threatened and endangered plant and animal

species2 5

10 Habitat for State threatened and endangered plant and animal species

2 5

11 Bald and golden eagle nests and buffer zones 2 512 Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas 2 513 Falcon cliff nesting sites and buffer zones 2 514 High priority habitat for migratory bird species of high Federal

interest2 5

15 Essential habitat for animal and plant species of high interest to State (such as sage grouse strutting grounds)

2 5

16 100-year fl oodplains that pose a substantial threat of loss of life or property if mined

2 5

17 Municipal watersheds 2 518 Natural Resource Waters plus a ¼ mile buffer zone from outer

banks2 2

19 AVFs where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming. Includes areas outside AVFs where mining would materially damage water quantity or quality in surface or underground water systems supplying AVFs.

2 5

20 Criteria proposed by a State or Tribe and adopted by DOI 2 5* Except National Forests which are Category 2


31

One of the primary objectives for the development of the categorization is to achieve geo-graphic independence for a given parcel of land subject to overlapping access constraints (hence the use of a hierarchy where that parcel of land or resources would be subject to a single category). The unsuitability criteria listed in 43 CFR 3461 only apply to surface mining or surface impacts of underground mining. Thus the nature of access required for surface and subsurface mining differs. This creates the need for separate access categories for coal resources accessible by surface and sub-surface mining.

2.3.1.1 Data Integration and Spatial Analysis – Related Caveats

Based on Steering Committee guidance, a constant offset of 1,500 feet around No Lease Areas was used. A full explanation of the application of the offset area is found in Appendix 3. Use of this constant, rather than a variable distance, is antici-pated to have less than one-half of one percent impact on the results.

2.4 Analytical Modeling of Federal Lands and Resources

The three principal datasets, Federal Land Status, USGS Coal Resources, and Coal Access Constraints were spatially unioned using a method analogous to that used to geoprocess the individual access constraints. In the resultant Model Master, each geographically unique GIS polygon was analyzed to determine the total amount of coal tonnage found within each access category by Federal land type. This represents the Inventory base case. This break-down of resource refl ects the Access Categorization. Resources are categorized purely by the category of the surface polygon overlying them and take the regulatory dataset (the ac-cess constraints) at face value.

To more closely model reality, the Inventory takes into account how access constraints are implemented in practice by Federal land managers by considering underground mining and the anticipated frequency with which exceptions/waivers/modifi cations to the access con-straints are granted as described below. A further discussion of exception factors can be found in Section 2.6 below.

2.5 Consideration of Resources Beyond Conventional Surface Mining Technology

Solely for the purposes of this analysis, coal resources beyond the extraction capabilities of conventional surface mining technology were assumed using a generalized “strip ratio” for PRB coals. This ratio relates the overburden thickness and thickness of coal to propose a point at which surface mining would become infeasible. Based upon guidance from the Steering Committee, the proposed strip ratio beyond which surface mining is not considered feasible is 10:1. Areas with a strip ratio of 10:1 or higher are placed in the NSOA/OA access category (see Table 2-6) because no surface mining operations are anticipated given the current mining technology.

•

32


In the Inventory, restrictions were appropriately given separate access categories for sur-face and sub-surface mining; because unsuitability criteria only apply to surface mining and surface impacts of subsurface mining. Thus an area affected by a coal restriction may be categorized differently depending on the type of mining. As a practical matter, coals at an ap-propriate depth can be underground-mined for some distance from the mine opening without surface disturbance, thereby making the resources accessible. The map showing assessed coal resources in the PRB beyond conventional surface mining technology is shown in Figure 2-6.

2.6 Considertion of Exception Factors as a Secenario to the Base Case

Exceptions (including waivers, exemptions and modifi cations) to access constraints are often granted with respect to coal mining. For example, a golden eagle nest exception may be granted if the nest is found to be unoccupied or can be moved (see 43 CFR 3461, Criteria 11 and 12). Because complete records of exceptions to access constraints are not available, the Inventory uses an approach based on experienced conjecture of fi eld personnel. BLM and FS fi eld personnel were asked to propose, based on their experience, which access con-straints should be granted exception for mining and to what degree. The fi eld personnel were asked to surmise a long-term scenario (measured in decades that coal development would take place) in which virtually all mining requests in the affected habitat asked for exceptions. The professionals were then asked to provide an informed judgment as to the proportion of requests for which exceptions would be granted, which was then used as the exception fac-tor for the restriction.

These hypotheticals were then used with the EPAct coal model to suggest how much coal resource would shift from category to category if a particular access constraint was granted an exception “x” percent of the time. Tabulation of these exception factors were made by restriction by offi ce.

In the modeling, for each discrete GIS polygon, compilation of base case and scenario case (driven by exception factors) are determined to estimate the lands and resources according to the categorization hierarchy. Additional information regarding Exception Factors can be found in Appendix 3 (Table A3-3 depicts the exception factors used in the modeling).

2.7 Consideration of Confl ict Administration Zones

Coalbed natural gas (CBNG) development in the PRB is a maturing form of energy development. Due to the inherent nature of coal mining, confl icts between CBNG development and coal mining operations arise over resource extraction timetables. In an effort to mitigate these confl icts, the BLM and cooperating state agencies have identifi ed Confl ict Administration Zones (CAZs) with the intent to allow development of both resources.

Due to current litigation in Montana, the CAZs are currently not in effect for the state, and therefore are not modeled. CBNG drilling in Montana currently is relatively limited. In Wyo-ming, where signifi cant CBNG drilling occurs, CAZs have been identifi ed by the BLM, and were included in the model.


33

Figure 2-6. Resources beyond Conventional Surface Mining Technology in the Powder River Basin

34


CAZs are reviewed annually and are changed accordingly. It is useful to note that a CAZ is established for all areas of Federal coalbed natural gas development where mining of Fed-eral coal is anticipated in the next ten years. The Inventory is a snapshot in time; however, a CAZ is a constantly moving target. As the mines advance, the CAZs will move ahead of them. Almost all unleased Federal coal that will be mined will eventually fall into a CAZ. Con-fl ict Administration Zones have been established after the coal screen updates for the land use plans were compiled; therefore, they are not part of the coal screening process.

Appendices 3 and 4 provide further discussion on CAZs, including a BLM Instruction Memo-randum on the subject. The current CAZs are modeled under Category 6 in the hierarchy.

2.8 Quality Control

A rigorous quality control (QC) check was instituted for the Inventory. During processing, the study area generated more than 360,000 discrete GIS polygons, each with unique charac-teristics in terms of land status, coal resources, access constraints and exception factors. As such, imprecision in GIS data that are insignifi cant for individual polygons can be amplifi ed in the aggregate. Such imprecision is a direct function of the quality of the data received from the various sources contributing to the Inventory. To the extent that data received for the project are imprecise, error is magnifi ed. A signifi cant portion of the geoprocessing effort is dedicated to mitigating this imprecision.

For QC purposes, input coal resource totals and land areas were compared to outputs. The quality of the EPAct coal model output is high.

The model’s land output data differs by less than 0.1 percent from the input data on an aggre-gate basis. This is a measure of the precision with which the EPAct coal model is functioning. To measure accuracy, a comparison of the modeled output of coal resources relative to input data (provided by the USGS) was made. For coal resources, model output data differs by 1.5 percent from the input data on an aggregate basis, which is within the Steering Committee’s guidance for a 5 percent tolerance.13

2.9 Reporting of Results

Model results are presented in the form of tables, maps, and pie charts of both acres of land and coal resources within each of the seven access categories. Detailed tables and charts show results by coal probability category for each access category. This information is con-tained in Section 3 of the report.

13 The USGS assessment includes confi dential data that were not made available for this study, which contribute to differences between the Inventory’s coal resources and the USGS assessment.

Section 3Results

35

3.0 RESULTS

The results of the Inventory are presented below, summarized by access category for land area and resources. Table 3-1 shows the results for the Powder River Basin. The tables show the results for Federal access category by land area and coal resources. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the corresponding pie charts depicting the seven-category access hierarchy (see Table 2-6) and the breakdown by coal-reliability category. Figures 3-3a, 3-3b and 3-4 show the Federal land access category15 and the corresponding undeveloped coal resources on Federal lands, respectively.

3.1 Study Area Features

Given its coal resource endowment and quality, activity, land and mineral ownership characteristics, the Powder River Basin is unique in terms of its Federal land and resources accessibility. Noteworthy observations are presented below.

Approximately 1.5 percent (82,000 acres) of assessed Federal coal resource acre-age is available for mining under standard lease terms (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Cat-egory 7). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 5 percent (27,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

Less than 1 percent (12,000 acres) of Federal mineral estates are available for min-ing with mitigation measures (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Category 6). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 1 percent (3,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

Approximately 8 percent (431,000 acres) of Federal land is accessible in areas with no surface mining anticipated or under offsets (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Category 5). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain 4 percent (24,000 MST) of the Federal coal in the basin.

Approximately 14 percent (739,000 acres) of Federal land is not available for leas-ing without Federal surface management agency or qualifi ed surface owner consent (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Category 4). Based on resource estimates, these lands con-tain 14 percent (77,000 MST) of the Federal coal in the basin.

Land use planning screens have not been applied to approximately 66 percent (3.6 million acres) of Federal coal estate (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Category 3). Based on resource estimates, these low current development interest (deep coal) lands contain about 70 percent (387,000 MST) of the Federal coal assessed by the USGS.

Approximately 8 percent (406,000 acres) of Federal land is not being leased as a re-sult of local land use planning decisions (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Category 2). Based on resource estimates, these lands contain about 3 percent (17,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

15 Note that the map displays surface access conditions only and does not depict the impact of exceptions, which is accounted for in the modeling.

•

•

•

•

•

•

36

Section 3Results

Approximately 3 percent (184,000 acres) of Federal land is statutorily not leasable (Figures 3-1 and 3-2, Category 1). Based on resource estimates, these lands con-tain about 3 percent (15,000 MST) of the Federal coal.

With respect to reliability, as expected, a greater degree of land use planning is associated with areas of higher coal resource certainty, as shown on Figure 3-2.

Of the hypothetical resources (coal occurrences having a very low degree of geologic assurance), 94 percent display the highest requirement for land use planning, fol-lowed by inferred resources (77 percent).

Of the indicated coal resources, 57 percent still require additional land use planning, while 9 percent are available under standard lease terms.

Of the measured resources, which have the highest reliability, 55 percent of the re-sources still require land use planning, while 10 percent are currently available under standard lease terms.

•

•

•

•

Table 3-1. Summary of Inventory Study Area―Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category

Access CategoryArea

Coal TypesTotal Coal

Hypothetical Inferred Indicated Measured

(Acres) Percent of Federal (MST)* (MST) (MST) (MST) (MST) Percent of

Federal1. No Leasing (Statutory/

Executive Order), (NLS) 184,385 3.4 245 9,636 4,524 872 15,277 2.8

2. No Leasing (Administrative), general category (NLA)

406,172 7.5 280 10,494 5,064 1,043 16,880 3.1

3. Possible Leasing (Administrative), Pending Land Use Planning or NEPA Compliance (PL-PLUP)

3,571,162 65.8 28,875 243,230 93,926 21,435 387,466 70.4

4. Possible Leasing (Administrative), Pending Surface Owner Consent (PL-PSOC)

738,827 13.6 527 29,919 37,471 9,128 77,045 14.0

5. Leasing, No Surface Operations Anticipated/Offset Area (NSOA/OA)

430,941 7.9 515 12,506 8,756 1,864 23,640 4.3

6. Surface Mining Allowed with Mitigation (SUR-MIT)

12,208 0.2 – 179 1,744 739 2,662 0.5

7. Leasing, Standard Lease Terms (SLTs)

81,962 1.5 255 9,148 14,156 3,676 27,235 5.0

Total Federal 5,425,657 100 30,696 315,113 165,641 38,757 550,206 100.0NonFederal 1,403,858 10,589 52,881 28,135 5,875 97,480 Total 6,829,515 41,285 367,994 193,775 44,633 647,686 * Million Short Tons

Section 3Results

37

Figure 3-1. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Total Federal Land and Coal Resources by Access Category

Figure 3-2. Chart of Results, Powder River Basin Study Area―Federal Coal Resources by Coal Reliability Type

38

Section 3Results

Figure 3-3a. Federal Land Access Categorization Map, Northern Powder River Basin Study Area

Section 3Results

39

Figure 3-3b. Federal Land Access Categorization Map, Southern Powder River Basin Study Area

40

Section 3Results

Figure 3-4. Federal Coal Thickness, Powder River Basin

Appendix 1Acronyms and Abbreviations

A1-1

APPENDIX 1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAO Authorized Offi cer

APD Application for Permit to Drill

AU Assessment Unit

AVF Alluvial Valley Floor

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BST Billion Short Tons

BTU British Thermal Unit

CAZ Confl ict Administration Zone

CBNG Coalbed Natural Gas

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CX Categorical Exclusion

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DNA Documentation of NEPA Adequacy

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EF Exception Factor

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FlorRs Federal Lands or Resources

FO Field Offi ce

FONSI Finding of No Signifi cant Impact

A1-2


FP Forest Plan

FS United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service

GCDB Geographic Coordinate Database

GIS Geographic Information System

IM Instruction Memorandum

ITCs Incorporated Towns and Cities

LAC Land Access Categorization

LBA Lease-by-Application

LLD Legal Land Description

LR Legacy Rehost

LUP Land Use Plan

MST Millions of Short Tons

MT Montana

NAD North American Datum

NCRA National Coal Resource Assessment (2000)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NF National Forest

NLA No Leasing, Administrative

NLS No Leasing, Statutory or Executive Order

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO No Surface Occupancy

NSOA/OA No Surface Operations Anticipated/Offset Area

OSM United States Department of Interior Offi ce of Surface Mining

PRB Powder River Basin

PL-PLUP Possible Leasing, Pending Land Use Planning

PL-PSOC Possible Leasing, Pending Surface Owner Consent

PL Public Law


A1-3

PLSS Public Land Survey System

QC Quality Control

RAMP Resource Area Management Plan

RMA Resource Management Area

RMP Resource Management Plan

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SLT Standard Lease Terms

SMA Surface Management Agency

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

SUB-DPTH Subsurface Mining Only Due to Coal Depth

SUR-MIT Surface Mitigation Required (Leasing Allowed)

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

VRM Visual Resource Management

WY Wyoming

A1-4



Appendix 2Glossary of Terms

A2-1

APPENDIX 2

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

-A-

Acquired Lands: Lands in Federal ownership that were obtained by the Government through purchase, condemnation, or gift; or by exchange. Acquired lands constitute one category of public lands (See public lands).

Affected Environment: Surface or subsurface resources (including social and economic elements) within or adjacent to a geographic area that could potentially be affected by coal activities; the environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration (40 CFR 1502.15).

Alluvial Valley Floor: The unconsolidated stream-laid deposits holding streams with water availability suffi cient for subirrigation or fl ood irrigation agricultural activities but does not include upland areas which are generally overlain by a thin veneer of colluvial deposits composed chiefl y of debris from sheet erosion, deposits formed by unconcentrated runoff or slope wash, together with talus, or other mass-movement accumulations, and windblown deposits, as defi ned in 30 CFR Chapter VII.

Application: A written request, petition, or offer to explore for coal or lease lands for coal mining, in accordance with the regulations found in Title 43 Part 3400.

Archeological/historic site: A site that contains either objects of antiquity or cultural value relating to history and/or prehistory that warrant special attention.

Assessment Unit: An area containing coal resources that includes the in-place tonnage estimates determined by summing the volumes for identifi ed and undeveloped deposits of coal of a minimum thickness and under less than a certain depth in a specifi ed coal bed or zone.

-B-

Basin: (1) An area largely enclosed by higher lands. (2) A low in the Earth’s crust of tectonic origin in which sediments have accumulated.

Big Game: Larger species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope.

Big Game Winter Range: An area available to and used by big game (large mammals normally managed for sport hunting) through the winter season.

Buffer Zone: (1) An area between two different land uses that is intended to resist, absorb, or otherwise preclude developments or intrusions between the two use areas. (2) A strip of undisturbed vegetation that retards the fl ow of runoff water, causing deposition of transported sediment.

A2-2


Bureau of Land Management: An agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers 264 million surface acres of America’s public lands, located primarily in 12 Western States. The BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The BLM also manages 699 million subsurface acres for mineral leasing and development.

-C-

Candidate Species: (1) A species for which substantial biological information exists on fi le to support a proposal to list it as endangered or threatened, but for which no proposal has yet been published in the Federal Register. The list of candidate species is revised approximately every two years in the Notice of Review. (2) Any species not yet offi cially listed, but undergoing a status review or proposed for listing according to Federal Register notices published by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce.

Coalbed: A layer of coal.

Coal production – The coal that is severed, stored, or sent to markets.

Coal reserves: Measured tonnages of coal that have been calculated to occur in a coal seam within a particular property. The United States has the world’s largest known coal reserves, over 260 billion short tons.

Coal Resources: Naturally occurring concentrations or deposits of coal in the Earth’s crust. The various types of coal resources are shown in Figure A2-1. (Also see Hypothetical, Identifi ed, Indicated, Inferred, and Demonstrated Resources).16

Coal thickness: The thickness of the coalbed.

Coal zone: Closely associated layers of coal within a defi ned stratigraphic interval. These layers may merge with or split off from each other, or be interrupted by channeling, faulting, or erosion.

Coalbed Natural Gas: Natural gas found in coalbeds. Also termed “coalbed methane” or “coalbed gas”. Coalbed methane extraction involves drilling into the coal and pumping water from the coal in an attempt to lower the hydrostatic head on the coal. This lower pressure will cause the release of gas which is adsorbed onto the

16 See USGS Circular 891, Coal Resource Classifi cation System of the U.S. Geological Survey for more information.

Figure A2-1. United States Coal Resources and Reserves


A2-3

coal. The gas production begins slowly and generally increases as the pressure drops over the years.

Compliant coal: Coal that contains not less than 1.0 and not more than 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU, as defi ned in the EPAct 2005.

Confl ict Administration Zone: An area established by the BLM around an active coal mine or Lease-By-Application area that has a potential confl ict with Coalbed Natural Gas development within the next ten years. In Confl ict Administration Zones, BLM will provide timely notice to the coal and CBNG lessees or operators of the need for prevention and resolution of such confl ict.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters.

Cultural Resources: Those fragile and nonrenewable physical remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor refl ected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, burial mounds, petroglyphs, and natural features that were of importance in past human events. These resources consist of (1) physical remains; (2) areas where signifi cant human events occurred, even though evidence of the event no longer remains; and (3) the environment immediately surrounding the resource. Cultural resources are commonly discussed in terms of prehistoric and historic values; however, each period represents a part of the full continuum of cultural values from the earliest to the most recent.

-D-

Decision Record: A document required by NEPA that is separate from, but associated with, an environmental assessment. The Decision Record publicly and offi cially discloses the responsible offi cial’s decision that will be implemented.

Demonstrated Resources: Measured plus Indicated resource categories combined.

-E-

Endangered Species: As defi ned in the Federal Endangered Species Act, any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a signifi cant portion of its range. For terrestrial species, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determines endangered status.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A public document for which a Federal agency is responsible that serves to: (1) briefl y provide suffi cient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a fi nding of no signifi cant impact; (2) help an agency comply with the NEPA when no EIS is necessary; and (3) facilitate the preparation of an EIS when one is necessary. An EA includes brief discussions of the need for the proposal and of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and other alternatives.

A2-4


Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A written analysis of the impacts on the natural, social, and economic environment of a proposed project or resource management plan with potentially signifi cant environmental impacts.

Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Section 437 Coal Inventory: This Inventory provides information regarding the geographic relationship between coal resources and the constraints that govern their development in the Powder River Basin. It is not a reassessment of any restrictions themselves on the development of coal resources. Additional information may be available from monitoring and scientifi c studies incorporated into adaptive management processes.

-F-

Federal Land: 43 CFR 3400.0-5(o) defi nes Federal lands as lands owned by the United States, without reference to how the lands were acquired or what Federal agency administers the lands, including surface estate, mineral estate and coal estate, but excluding lands held by the United States in trust for Indians, Aleuts or Eskimos.

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared by a Federal agency showing why a proposed action would not have a signifi cant impact on the environment and thus would not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A FONSI is based on the results of an environmental assessment.

Forest Plan (FP): A land use plan for a unit of the National Forest system.

Forest Service (FS): An agency of the United States Department of Agriculture that manages 193 million acres of public lands in national forests and grasslands.

-G-

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system capable of assembling, storing, manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced information, i.e., data identifi ed according to their locations.

Geospatial: Information that identifi es the geographic location and characteristics of natural or constructed features and boundaries on the earth. This information may be derived from remote sensing, mapping, and surveying technologies, or from other sources.

-H-

Habitat: A specifi c set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and living space.

Hypothetical Resources: Coal occurrences having a very low degree of geologic assurance. Tonnage estimates for this category of resources are based on assumed continuity geographically beyond inferred resources (coal beyond a radius of 3 miles or 4.8 km from a known point of coal thickness).

-I-


A2-5

Identifi ed Resources: Resources whose location and quantity are known or estimated from specifi c geologic evidence. This includes virgin coal that lies ¼ mile or less from a known point of coal thickness (such as a drill hole or outcrop measurement).

Indicated Resources: Identifi ed bodies of coal having a moderate degree geologic assurance. This includes virgin coal that lies between 1/4 mile (0.4 km) and 3/4 mile (1.2 km) from a known point of coal thickness

Inferred Resources: Identifi ed bodies of coal having a low degree of geologic assurance. This includes virgin coal that lies between 3/4 mile (1.2 km) and 3 miles (4.8 km) from a known point of coal thickness

-J-

-K-

-L-

Land Use Planning (LUP) Screen: As mandated by 43 CFR part 3420.1-4, all Federal lands must be screened as part of the basis for coal leasing decisions and planning efforts. The coal screens are a four-part process involving identifying areas with coal development potential, applying the coal unsuitability criteria, assessing multiple land use confl icts and consulting with qualifi ed surface owners.

Lease (Coal): An authorization to use Federal coal issued under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181, et seq.); the Act of August 7, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351, et seq.); the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 1083-1092); the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.); the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 USC 1201 et seq.), or the Act of November 16, 1981 (PL 97-98, 95 Stat. 1070).

Lease-by-application: Federal regulations under 43 CFR 3425 for decertifi ed coal regions where discrete projects are evaluated at the lease application stage and management decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Evaluations of potential lease tracts are triggered by applications from industry rather than by regional planning.

-M-

Measured Resources: Identifi ed bodies of coal having a high degree of geologic assurance. This includes virgin coal that lies between 0 and 1/4 mile (0.4 km) from a known point of coal thickness.

Mineral: Organic and inorganic substances occurring naturally, with characteristics and economic uses that bring them within the purview of mineral laws; a substance that may be obtained under applicable laws from public lands by purchase, lease, or pre-emptive entry.

Mitigation: Includes the following:

A2-6


(1) Avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its imple-mentation.

(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environ-ment.

(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or en-vironments.

Monitoring: The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data to evaluate progress toward meeting resource management objectives.

Multiple Land Use Concerns: The BLM and FS are multiple use agencies, and sometimes multiple resource customers compete for the use of the surface for a different purpose. If multiple minerals are leased, appropriate stipulations are attached to the leases to allow for staged development.

-N-

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An Act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for other purposes. The law requires the assessment and documentation of the environmental and social impacts of Federal actions. (PL 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by PL 94-52, July 3, 1975, PL 94-83, August 9, 1975, and PL 97-258, § 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982)

National Forest (NF): Created by an act of Congress in 1892, National Forests are Federal land reservations that are administered by the United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service for multiple uses, including grazing, logging, minerals, and recreation.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): A Federal Government list of “... districts, sites, buildings, structures, and other objects signifi cant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture.” The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, and is published in its entirety in the Federal Register each year in February.

National Register of Natural Landmarks: A nationally signifi cant natural area that has been designated by the Secretary of the Interior. An example is a type of biological community or geological feature in its physiographic province that illustrates the geological and ecological character of the United States.

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): An area where no surface-disturbing activities of any nature or for any purpose are allowed. For example, construction or the permanent or long-term placement of structures or other facilities would be prohibited. It is also used as a mitigation requirement for controlling or prohibiting selected land uses or activities that would confl ict


A2-7

with other activities, uses, or values in a given area. When used in this way, the NSO mitigation requirement is applied to prohibit one or more specifi c types of land and resource development activities or surface uses in an area, while other—perhaps even similar—types of activities or uses (for other purposes) would be allowed. For example, protecting important rock art relics from destruction may require closing the area to the staking of mining claims and surface mining, off-road vehicle travel, construction or long-term placement of structures or pipelines, power lines, general purpose roads, and livestock grazing. Conversely, the construction of fences (to protect rock art from vandalism or from trampling or breakage by livestock), an access road or trail, and other visitor facilities to provide interpretation and opportunity for public enjoyment of the rock art would be allowed. Additionally, if there were potential and interest for leasing and consequent mineral development in the area, then leases for coal, gas and oil, etc., could be issued with a NSO mitigation requirement for the rock art site, which would still allow access to the minerals from adjacent lands and underground. The term “no surface occupancy” has no relationship or relevance to the presence of people in an area.

Notice: The communication of a pending Federal action; the notifi cation to parties of Federal actions about to be taken. This is a part of due process.

-O-

Offset Area: The area outside of a No Leasing area used to account for the average distances for construction of benches associated with the perimeters of surface mines.

Operator: An individual, group, association, or corporation authorized to conduct coal mining on public lands.

Overburden: The layers of soil and rock above the coal bed to be mined.

-P-

Proposed Species: A species of plant or animal formally proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Public Domain Lands: Original public domain lands that have never left Federal ownership; also, lands in Federal ownership that were obtained by the Government in exchange for public domain lands or for timber on public domain lands. Public domain lands constitute one category of public lands (See public lands).

Public Lands: Any land and interest in land owned by the United States that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except for (1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and (2) lands held for the benefi t of American Indians and Alaskan Natives; includes public domain and acquired lands (see defi nitions). Vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved public lands, or public lands withdrawn by Executive Order 6910 of November 26, 1934, as amended, or by Executive Order 6964 of February 5, 1935, as amended, and not otherwise withdrawn or reserved, or public lands within grazing district established under Section 1 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269), as amended, and not otherwise withdrawn or reserved. Any

A2-8


land and interest in land owned by the United States that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except for (1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and (2) lands held for the benefi t of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos; includes public domain and acquired lands (see defi nitions). Vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved public lands, or public lands withdrawn by Executive Order 6910 of November 26, 1934, as amended, or by Executive Order 6964 of February 5, 1935, as amended, and not otherwise withdrawn or reserved, or public lands within grazing district established under Section 1 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269), as amended, and not otherwise withdrawn or reserved.

-Q-

Qualifi ed Surface Owner: The natural person or persons (or corporation, the majority stock of which is held by a person or persons otherwise meeting the requirements of 43 CFR 3427 who: (1) Hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands; (2) Have their principal place of residence on the land, or personally conduct farming or ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to be affected by surface mining operations; or receive directly a signifi cant portion of their income, if any, from such farming and ranching operations; and (3) Have met the conditions of criteria (1) and (2) of this section for a period of at least three years, except for persons who gave written consent less than three years after they met the requirements of both criteria (1) and (2). In computing the three year period the authorized offi cer shall include periods during which title was owned by a relative of such person by blood or marriage if, during such periods, the relative would have met the requirements of this section.

-R-

Record of Decision: A document required by NEPA that is separate from, but associated with, an environmental impact statement. The Record of Decision publicly and offi cially discloses the responsible offi cial’s decision that will be implemented.

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use plan that provides the basic, general direction and guidance for BLM-administered public lands within a specifi c administrative area.

Restriction: Resource use, unsuitability criteria, coal development potential, legal restrictions, or surface owner confl icts that either prevent a parcel of Federal coal from being leased or require special lease stipulations and management prescriptions to mitigate the confl ict.

Right-of-Way: A permit or easement which authorizes the use of public land for certain specifi ed purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, etc.; also, the lands covered by such an easement or permit. It does not grant an estate of any kind, only the right of use. May also include a site.

Riparian Areas: The vegetation along the banks of rivers and streams and around springs, bogs, wet meadows, lakes, and ponds.


A2-9

-S-

Shapefi le: GIS fi le format usable with ESRI (such as ArcView) and other commercial GIS software. It is a nontopological data structure that does not explicitly store topological relationships. However, unlike other simple graphic data structures, one or more rings represent shapefi le polygons. A ring is a closed, non-self-intersecting loop. This structure can represent complex structures, such as polygons, that contain “islands.” The vertices of a ring maintain a consistent, clockwise order so that the area to the right, as one “walks” along the ring boundary, is inside the polygon, while the area to the left is outside the polygon.

Short Ton: Unit of mass equal to 2,000 pounds.

Split Estate: Federal mineral estate administered by the BLM, which is under either private lands, state lands, or lands administered by another Federal agency. On split estate lands, the surface owner or managing agency controls the surface uses but the mineral estate is the dominant estate, subject to qualifi ed surface owner consent. The BLM coordinates with surface owners on mineral leasing and development. In a few cases, the BLM administers the surface, but the minerals are owned by the state or a private entity.

Strip Ratio: The ratio between the overburden thickness and the coal thickness. The strip ratio is used to determine where surface mining becomes uneconomic and underground mining becomes the only feasible method of extraction. The strip ratio used in this study to determine the limit of surface mining in the Powder River Basin is 10:1.

Study Area: In this study, areas underlain by certain coal zones in the Powder River Basin, which was selected as the geologic province for this inventory. It comprises the area underlain by known or postulated coal resources in the Wyodak-Anderson, Knobloch, and Rosebud-Robinson coal zones based upon the USGS assessment in Professional Paper P-1625A.

Subbituminous coal: Coal that typically contains between 35 and 45% carbon. Over 40% of the coal produced in the United States is subbituminous, with Wyoming as the leading source.

Supercompliant coal: Coal that contains less than 1.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU, as defi ned by the EPAct 2005.

Surface Management Agency: The Federal agency with jurisdiction over the surface of Federally owned lands containing coal deposits, and, in the case of private surface over Federal coal, the Bureau of Land Management, except in areas designated as National Grasslands, where it means the Forest Service.

Surface Coal Mining Operations: Activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a surface coal mine or surface operations and surface impacts incident to an underground mine, as defi ned in section 701(28) of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1291(28)).

Surface Mining: Method used to produce coal that is relatively shallow in depth. Earth-moving equipment is used to remove the topsoil and layers of rock to expose the coal.

A2-10


Surface Owner Consent: The right of a qualifi ed surface owner to prohibit leasing on split estate Federal coal under 43 CFR 3427.

Surface Ownership Consultation: Part of the Land Use Planning screen under 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(4). Prior to designating an area as acceptable for leasing, BLM and FS consult with surface owners to determine if they are for or against mining. If a signifi cant portion of surface owners express a preference against mining, the area may not be considered acceptable for further consideration for leasing for surface mining.

-T-

-U-

Underground Mining: Method used to produce coal that is buried too deeply to mine by surface methods. Common underground mining techniques are room-and-pillar and longwall.

Unsuitability Criteria: Established by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and expanded in 43 CFR 3461, the criteria evaluate cultural and environmental resources which may be affected by mining. Application of the criteria result in a classifi cation as: suitable for further consideration for coal leasing, suitable pending further study due to insuffi cient or outdated data, suitable after application of exceptions or exemptions, or unsuitable for further consideration for leasing.

-V-

-W-

Wilderness: A Congressionally designated area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and infl uence, without permanent improvement or human habitation, that is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfi ned type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of suffi cient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and, (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientifi c, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Withdrawal: An action that restricts the disposition of public lands and that holds them for specifi c public purposes; also, public lands that have been dedicated to public purposes (for example, recreation sites, offi ce or warehouse sites, etc.).

-X-

-Y-

-Z-

Appendix 3GIS Preparation and Methodology

A3-1

APPENDIX 3

GIS DATA PREPARATION AND METHODOLOGYA3.1 Federal Land Status Preparation

A3.1.1 Sources of Data

Federal lands mapping for the Inventory was completed based upon detailed research of multiple sources of information that describe the nature and extent of Federal surface and mineral interests. Spatial data themes were created that defi ne various ownership charac-teristics and categories for lands within the study area boundaries. The fi nal data sets were rendered to delineate both surface and subsurface United States rights. Ownership cases were extracted from the BLM’s LR-2000 Data-base, processed, and used to create polygon themes for the project. The primary digital datasets processed and mapped include LR-2000 Status, Case Recordation, Legal Land Description, and existing Federal coal leases and LBAs. Digital land title records were supplemented with paper maps, land ownership ledgers, resource management plans, and other miscellaneous real property records. The primary BLM land record databases are shown on the following schematic in Figure A3-1.17

In the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) in the PRB, the BLM’s Geographic Coor-dinate Data Base, where available, was utilized as the survey framework to create Federal land ownership and parcel bound-aries. In areas where GCDB was not available, al-ternate sources were used to es-tablish the posi-tions of PLSS corners and sub-divisions. Geo-graphic coordi-nates were not available in all cases and, therefore, may be somewhat generalized.

17 Information is available at http://www.geocommunicator.gov which provides searching, accessing and dynamic mapping of data for Federal land stewardship, land and mineral use records, and land survey information. It also provides spatial display for land and mineral cases from BLM’s LR2000 system.

Figure A3-1. Schematic of BLM’s Primary Land Records Databases

A3-2


A3.1.2 Data Preparation

Polygon themes were created for individual ownership cases within the study areas that were extracted from the BLM’s LR-2000 Database.

The Surface Management Agency (SMA) and ownership polygon boundar-ies refl ect parcel geometry as described by the legal land description maintained in the electronic records. All land descriptions were processed, including minor subdivisions where available, down to and including 2.5 acres. Lands described by lot, tract, or special surveys where GCDB was not available were processed against the BLM Legal Land De-scription (LLD) fi le to convert the lot references to nominal aliquot descriptions. Depending on the actual survey type and special survey geometry, the resulting polygon may contain a degree of generalization. Additionally, the BLM record systems do not contain individual records for public domain lands. The location of these lands was determined through various subtractive polygon-processing steps.

The primary information that defi nes U.S. ownership are data elements associated with vari-ous title transactions and business events recorded and maintained within the LR-2000 Da-tabase. Case records that fall within the following four general categories were extracted and mapped.

1. Land Disposals, including patents, grants, deeds, land sales and all other transac-tions that conveyed ownership rights in lands from the Federal government.

2. Acquired Lands, including lands that were re-acquired by the United States under various legal authorities.

3. Land Exchanges, including lands exchanged between the Federal government and other parties.

4. Quiet Title Cases, including all records established to cure title and quiet adverse claims.

These four major categories formed the basis to extract the desired records from the BLM’s databases. The four queries were processed against both the Status and Case Recordation datasets. Due to formatting differences between the two databases, the resulting polygon attributes contained in the GIS shape fi les varied slightly. Additionally, in some records ex-tracted from the Case Recordation system, United States Rights were not readily available but were determined as accurately as possible through interpretation from land records ob-tained at BLM state and fi eld offi ces.

The following attribute fi elds shown in Table A3-1 lists the data elements contained in the shape fi les produced from each of the LR-2000 datasets:

The data simplifi cation process was completed through numerous steps that combined data associated with each of the four broad record categories described above.


A3-3

Figure A3-2. Master Polygon

Status Attributes Case Recordation AttributesShape MeridianMeridian TownshipTownship RangeRange SectionSection SurveytypeSurvey Type AliquotAliquot SerialnumbAdminagenc SurveynumbCounty NameState PercentintSerialnumb PriceDocid AcresPatent_num DispositioCase_type CasetypeUsright1 CommodityUsright2 ExpiredateUsright3 ExpireyearUsright4 EffectdatePatentissu (mm/dd/yy) RoyaltyrtPatentiss1 (year) GeonameAcres HbpPatentee OrId Id

Note:Data fi elds will be populated if data are entered in the Status dataset. If U.S Rights are recorded in the U.S Rights fi eld, they will be included in the Commodity fi eld.

Note:Data fi elds will be populated if data are entered in the Case Recordation data-set. If US Rights are entered, they will be included in the Commodity fi eld.

Table A3-1. Polygon Attributes from the LR-2000 DatasetsA general discussion of the processing steps is de-scribed below:

1. The GCDB or alter-nate source PLSS data was used as the cadastral refer-ence framework. The PLSS grid con-tains data elements and coordinates that defi ne both town-ships, sections, and 1/16 subdivisions. Where legal de-scriptions described parcels less than 40 acres, CartéView software was used to map the minor aliquot parts down to 2.5 acres or smaller.18

2. After the PLSS base was load-ed, a master polygon (Figure A3-2) was created to represent the original U.S. land purchases and annexa-tions.

3. The next step involved pro-cessing textual legal land descriptions against the PLSS framework fi le by subdividing according to the survey rules embedded in the CartéView soft-ware. The data shown in Table A3-2 shows a typical input fi le.

4. After the records from the Sta-tus and Case Recordation datasets were processed, the resulting polygon themes were re-attributed to facilitate merging them together. These poly-gons were then overlaid on the Mas-ter Polygon to establish the location of lands where ownership left the Federal

18 CartéView is the proprietary software of Premier Data Services, Englewood, CO.

A3-4


Figure A3-3. Public Domain Lands

Figure A3-4. Query of U.S. Rights Data

government by virtue of patent, grant, or other title transfer au-thority. The resulting coverages are represented in the following graphic, Figure A3-3.

The yellow polygons shown on the above map represent lands in the public domain where sur-face and subsurface rights are managed by the BLM.

5. The next step involved construct-ing a series of queries of the Unit-ed States rights data associated with lands that were disposed through various title transfers. This query process (Figure A3-4) involved a very complex analy-sis against the attribute tables in the spatial datasets. The results of these processes delineate all lands where subsurface coal mineral rights are owned by the United States.

Figure A3-5 illustrates the dis-tribution of split estate mineral ownership within a four township area. The parcels shaded gray represent patented lands where the United States retained rights to the coal mineral estate.

StatusMeridian

Generic Township

USRight1 Range

Serial NumberAliquot County State Serial

Number DocID Case Type USRight1Section SurveyTy

6 0160N 0920W 28 T NWNW,NWSW,SWNW 7 WY WYC 0001269 165770 HE ORIGINAL Coal

6 0160N 0920W 29 T NENE,NESE,NWNE,NWSE,SENE,SW 7 WY WYC 0001269 165770 HE ORIGINAL Coal

6 0160N 0920W 20 T NESE,NWSE,SESE,SWSE 7 WY WYC 0001270 163248 HE ORIGINAL Coal

6 0160N 0920W 21 T NWSW,SWSW 7 WY WYC 0001270 163248 HE ORIGINAL Coal

6 0160N 0920W 28 T NWNW 7 WY WYC 0001270 163248 HE ORIGINAL Coal

6 0160N 0920W 29 T NENE,NWNE 7 WY WYC 0001270 163248 HE ORIGINAL Coal

Table A3-2. Typical CarteView Input File


A3-5

Figure A3-5. Federal Split Estates Coal Ownership

Figure A3-6. Defi ning Ownership

6. The last step in the spatial query and overlay process was to de-fi ne any other Federal manage-ment agencies or state surface ownership. These determina-tions were made by completing a series of queries against the ownership fi elds in the parcel base. The results of this query are shown in Figure A3-6.

7. The fi nal processing step was to dissolve the individual parcels into ownership categories that defi ne the surface and mineral estates. The view in Figure A3-7 shows the surface manage-ment agencies and how land ownership is distributed within an area of the Powder River Basin.

In contrast to the surface man-agement view, the mineral es-tate in the view shown in Figure A3-8 covers the same area and yields a much different picture. The yellow areas represent lands where the Federal gov-ernment manages coal rights.

A3.1.3 Data Limitations

The data sets created from the pro-cesses described above refl ect the le-gal land descriptions contained in the BLM databases. There was no attempt to analyze and review all of the error logs that were generated from the par-cel generation process. If legal land descriptions were not properly entered and formatted according to BLM’s pub-lished LR-2000 standards, an error log was generated.

A3-6


Figure A3-7. Surface Management View

Figure A3-8. Subsurface Coal Ownership View

Other limitations:

The BLM Case Recordation System is not consistently populated with United States Rights data. The split estate ownership generated from LR-2000 was verifi ed by contacting BLM State and Field Offi ces. These data may carry a minor degree of generalization.

The PLSS data were not edge matched across state boundaries.

A3.1.4 Merging Datasets

Merging of datasets for Federal surface and subsurface ownership followed three basic rules in order of priority:

Data extrapolated from deed records were considered to have the highest confi dence level.

Newer data and map publication dates were used over older sources.

Verbal verifi cation by agency was obtained.

A3.2 Federal Coal Lease Restriction Data Preparation

The bulk of the data preparation for lease restrictions consisted of data gathering, digitiza-tion, and compilation in a multi-layered ArcGIS 9.2 format (ESRI shapefi le or geodatabase feature classes). FGDC-compliant metadata for the resulting GIS layers were also created.

Where necessary, the data obtained from the Federal land management agencies were pro-cessed using ArcGIS software by matching specifi c leasing restrictions found in the guidance documents.

This Inventory is limited to those Federal lands within the Powder River Basin study area boundary, which is based on occurrence of specifi c coal zones in specifi c areas as defi ned in the USGS NCRA. The land status and restriction data, which correspond to Federal land

•

•

•

•

•


A3-7

Figure A3-9. Restriction Polygons and Study Area Boundary

Figure A3-10. Example of Polygons after Clipping to Study Area Boundary

management agency jurisdiction boundaries, were “clipped” using the GIS to the appropriate study boundary. The attribute tables of the compiled shapefi le were then queried for unique leasing restriction values. The query results were saved as separate polygon shapefi les. Each shapefi le represents a unique restriction value.

1. The fi rst step entails loading the study area (resource assessment units) boundary shapefi le and the compiled restriction shapefi le into ArcGIS (Figure A3-9).

The next step in this process is to “clip” or cut the compiled restriction shapefi le to the study boundary. Figure A3-10 shows the GIS coverage after it has been clipped.

2. The compiled restriction shapefi le is then queried for unique restriction attributes val-ues as shown in the ArcGIS Query Builder (Figure A3-11). For this example, all poly-gons covered by the leasing restriction “buffl o004, Wilderness Study Areas” were se-lected. The highlighted rows in the attribute table (Figure A3-12) show which records are selected.19

19 See Appendix 4 for a complete listing of restriction codes for Land Use Plans in the Powder River Basin.

A3-8


3. Using the ArcGIS function “Create layer from Selected Features,” a new shape-fi le is created that contains only polygons labeled with the attribute “Wilderness Study Area”. Figure A3-13 shows the new shapefi le that is created.

A3.3 GIS Methodology

Following are further descriptions of how Fed-eral lands were assigned into the seven cat-egories referred to in Table 2-4 and a detailed description of the GIS methodology used.

As noted in Section 2, polygons are assigned a Land Access Categorization (LAC) based on the combination of that area’s unique coal restrictions. Where multiple restrictions coin-cide, the polygon is assigned the most restric-tive access category. As discussed in Section 2, coal restrictions were assigned to access categories relative to surface and subsurface mining–for example, a polygon having a strip ratio greater than or equal to 10:1 was consid-ered more appropriate for underground min-ing and was categorized using the restriction’s subsurface category.

Based upon Section 522(e)(2)(B) of the Sur-face Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and guidance from Custer National For-est, the Forest is classifi ed as NLS for surface mining and NLA for subsurface mining.

A3.4 Restriction Exceptions

Exceptions (including waivers and modifi ca-tions) to restrictions are sometimes granted for coal developments. Exceptions are discussed in 43 CFR 3461 for each of the twenty unsuit-ability criteria. For example, an exception to a restriction on mining near a golden eagle nest location may be granted if the lessee proves that proper mitigation measures can be taken

to relocate the nest. Because adequate records of exceptions to lease restrictions are not available to address this issue specifi cally, BLM and FS fi eld personnel were asked to de-termine, based on their experience, which lease restrictions were granted exceptions for

Figure A3-11. Query in ArcGIS for all “Wilderness Study Area” Restrictions

Figure A3-12. Attribute Table Showing “Wilderness Study Area” Polygons


A3-9

mining and how often. The fi eld personnel were asked to surmise the long-term (mea-sured in decades that energy development would take place) relative to the hypotheti-cal situation where virtually all mining per-mit requests in the affected habitat asked for exceptions. The personnel then provided an estimate of the portion of the requests for which exceptions would be granted. The ex-ception factors thus determined are shown by jurisdiction in Table A3-3.

In most cases, the fi eld personnel provided a quantifi able answer for their estimate. How-ever, certain Unsuitability Criteria exceptions are not quantifi able, but qualitative. Rather than granting exceptions on a general ba-sis, specifi c areas or values were excepted, while others were not.

For Rights-of-Way (ROW) Easements (Un-suitability Criterion 2) in the state of Wyo-ming (on both BLM and FS lands), excep-tions are granted on all occasions except for railroads and Interstate Highways.

Surface mining exceptions are granted in High Priority Habitat (Unsuitability Criterion

15) in Buffalo and Casper, WY BLM districts 70 percent of the time for the big game winter range and parturition range, and 50 percent of the time for sage grouse leks.

Surface mining exceptions are granted on Floodplains (Unsuitability Criterion 16) in Miles City, MT; Buffalo, WY; and Casper, WY BLM districts for all tributaries, but not for major riv-ers. In Thunder Basin National Grassland, surface mining exceptions are granted for the fl oodplains of all rivers except the North Fork of the Cheyenne River.

Lease restrictions often overlap. Where restrictions with exception factors overlap, the cu-mulative effect is calculated by multiplying the overlapping factors (from Table A3-3). This calculation implicitly assumes that exceptions for multiple restrictions would likely not be ob-tained for a given area. For example, cumulative effects of excepted restrictions for the study area are determined as shown in Table A3-4. The application of these exception factors is described below in Section A3.6.

Figure A3-13. New Polygons Representing Land with Leasing

Restriction for “Wilderness Study Area”

A3-10


A3.5 Treatment of Offset Areas

For the Inventory, an “offset area” of 1,500 feet was placed around the edge of areas with No Leasing Stat-utory access category, Railroads, and Interstate Highways to account for the fact that mining is not permit-

ted up to the boundary of the lease agreement in these areas. The actual area available for mining is offset from the lease boundary to allow for nearby lands to be mined in the stan-dard, “benched” pattern. Lands within this offset were categorized as No Surface Operations Anticipated/Offset Areas.20

A3.6 Consideration of Confl ict Administration Zones

Coalbed natural gas is in the early stages of development in the Powder River Basin of southeastern Montana. Production of CBNG began in 1999 from private and state wells and in 2003 from Federal wells. Approximately 750 wells are producing CBNG from Federal, state, and private leases. Most of the production is coming from wells in the CX Field which is operated by Fidelity Exploration & Production Company with the rest of the production com-ing from wells operated by Pinnacle Resources and Powder River Gas companies.

20 Under offset areas for railroad tracts, highways, etc., coal is typically leased to ensure that the coal is mined at a later date when and where it is feasible to remove or relocate the obstacle.

Jurisdiction

Exception Factors

LUP Screen 2 – Unsuitability Criteria LUP Screen 3 – Multiple Use Areas

LUP Screen 4 – Negative Surface Owner Consent2 3 6 11 12 13 14 15 16

Righ

ts-o

f-Way

or

Ease

men

ts

Buffe

r Zon

es

Land

s Use

d fo

r Sc

ientifi

c St

udy

Bald

and

Gold

en

Eagl

e Nes

ts

Bald

and

Gold

en E

agle

Roos

t and

co

ncen

tratio

n Si

tes

Falco

n Cl

iff N

estin

g Si

tes

Migr

ator

y Bird

s of

High

Fed

eral

Inte

rest

High

Prio

rity H

abita

t for

Fi

sh, W

ildlif

e, an

d Pl

ants

Floo

dplai

ns

Town

of G

illette

Buf

fer

Town

of W

right

Buf

fer

Buffalo, WY, BLM Field Offi ce * 80% 70% 90% 10% 90% 100% * * 20% 60% 90%

Casper, WY, BLM Field Offi ce * 80% 70% 90% 10% 90% 100% * * 90%

Miles City, MT, BLM Field Offi ce 75% 25% 67% 67% *

Thunder Basin National Grassland * 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% * 100%

* See text for an explanation of the application for this Exception Factor

Table A3-3. Restriction Exception Factors by FS and BLM Offi ce

Restriction Exception Factor (EF) Sage Grouse Lek 50%Areas within 100 feet of a cemetery 80%Sage Grouse Lek and within 100 feet of a cemetery 40%

Table A3-4. Exception Factors Example for Overlapping Restrictions


A3-11

In order to analyze conventional oil and gas development as well as full fi eld CBNG develop-ment, the BLM and the State of Montana (Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation and De-partment of Environmental Quality) prepared a joint environmental impact statement (2003) and resource management plan amendment. BLM issued its record of decision in April 2003. The ROD and supporting EIS are currently under litigation.

The BLM issued an Instruction Memorandum in 2006 to address CAZ management in the PRB.21 Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153 outlines BLM’s goals regarding confl ict man-agement, as well as action the BLM may take if it deems necessary.

The U.S. District Court has directed BLM to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to the 2003 EIS that analyzes the phased development of CBNG. The BLM is currently under an injunction issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (May 2005) enjoining BLM from approving any additional CBNG production in the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin. This injunction will remain in place at least until the Ninth Circuit rules on pending appeals in two consolidated cases that have been briefed and argued before the court.22

Wyoming BLM offi ces have identifi ed CAZs within their jurisdiction and provided GIS data for purposes of the Inventory.

A3.7 Analytical Modeling of Federal Lands and Resources

The analytical goal of the Inventory is to calculate the area of Federal lands (including non-Federal lands overlying Federally owned coal [split estate]) in each access category in the hierarchy and the volume of coal resources underlying the Federal lands in each access category, while at the same time accounting for restriction exceptions.

One of the primary objectives for the development of the categorization is to achieve geo-graphic independence for a given parcel of land subject to overlapping restrictions (hence, the use of the categorization hierarchy where that parcel of land would be subject to only one category). The following discussion illustrates the application of the land access cat-egorization for an area of multiple restrictions from the Buffalo, WY, BLM FO, where sage grouse leks, areas within 100 feet of a cemetery, and VRM Class II areas defi ne an access category.

Figure A3-14 shows a selected point where the restrictions overlap and the resultant catego-ry is No Surface Operations Anticipated/Offset Area. A query at that point brings up a dialog box which lists the restrictions in effect. Table A3-5 contains the corresponding restriction data extracted from a master restrictions list.

21 The complete text of the Instruction Memorandum can be found in Appendix 6.

22 The two cases are listed below:United States District Court of the District of Montana, Billings Div Northern Plains Resources Council: CV 03-69-BLG-RWA Northern Cheyenne Tribe: CV-03-78-BLG-RWAUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Northern Plains Resource Council: 05-35413 Northern Cheyenne Tribe: 05-35408

A3-12


Figure A3-15 shows the land catego-rization as determined by the restric-tions listed in the relevant land use plan. Note that the core nesting habitat of the sage grouse (shown in blue), is designated a “No Surface Operations/Offset” area.

In addition, to account for restriction exceptions, the GIS model determined the effects due to the presence or ab-sence of the restrictions by selectively removing excepted restrictions. This is illustrated by Figures A3-16 and A3-17, which show an example where the sage grouse habitat restriction has been removed. Note that in the case of an excepted restriction, the analysis defaults to the underlying restriction or standard lease terms, as appropriate.

In the case of the highlighted areas in the map, if sage grouse habitat restric-tions are excepted 50 percent of the time (as shown in Table A3-3), then, for an area represented by the sage grouse restriction polygon (where sage grouse habitat restrictions do not over-lap other restrictions), the remaining 50 percent is categorized according to the underlying restriction category, as shown in Figure A3-17 (SLT in this case). This change results in 9.3 MST of coal being reclassifi ed as SLT from NSOA/OA.

In the EPAct coal model, the access category of the Federal lands and re-

sources was determined in the aggregate, based upon discrete examination of individual GIS polygons using the following equation:

Figure A3-14. Display of OverlappingRestrictions

Figure A3-15. Display of Federal Land Access Category

Table A3-5. Sample Master Restrictions List for a Selected Area

RestID Description SurfCat SubCat Exception Factor

buffl o15c Sage Grouse Leks 2 5 50%buffl o03b Areas within 100 feet of a cemetery 2 5 80%buffl ovrm VRM Class II Area 6 6 –


A3-13

Figure A3-16. Display of Federal LandAccess Category without Sage Grouse

Habitat Restriction Excepted

Figure A3-17. Display of Federal Land Access Category with Sage Grouse

Habitat Restriction Excepted

FLorRs = ∑((1-EF) * FLorRs + (EF * FLorRs (w/ Excepted)))

Where FlorRs = Federal Lands or Resources EF = Exception Factor (listed in Table A3-3) FLorRs(w/ Excepted= FLorRs determined using the removal of restrictions for which exceptions are granted

This equation accounts for the occur-rence of restriction exceptions. For ex-cepted restrictions, the model defaults to the underlying restriction category in the hierarchy.

This process results in the generation of numerous individual GIS polygons for each study area. These data are then summed and reported by access cate-gory and Federal management agency. For coal resources, categorization is provided by specifi c resource type.

A3-14



Appendix 4BLM CAZ Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153

A4-1

APPENDIX 4

BLM CAZ INSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM NO. 2006-153UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

May 11, 2006

In Reply Refer To:3100 (310) P

EMS TRANSMISSION 05/18/2006Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153Expires: 09/30/2007

To: State Directors, Wyoming and Montana

From: Director

Subject: Policy and Guidance on Confl icts between Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) and Surface Coal Mine Development in the Powder River Basin

Program Area: Coalbed natural gas development and surface coal mining Powder River Basin

Purpose: Provide direction concerning development confl icts between surface coal mining and CBNG operations on federal leases in the Powder River Basin and to clarify the actions the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can and will take, if necessary.

Policy/Action: The BLM will seek to achieve the following goals in resolving development confl icts between CBNG and surface coal mining on federal coal and federal oil and gas leases. This policy supersedes all other directives on this subject.

Optimize the recovery of both resources in an endeavor to secure the maximum re-turn to the public in revenue and energy production.

Prevent avoidable waste of the public’s resources utilizing authority under existing statutes, regulations and lease terms.

Honor the rights of each lessee, subject to the terms of the lease and sound prin-ciples of resource conservation.

Protect public health and safety, and mitigate environmental impacts.

It is the policy of the BLM to encourage oil and gas and coal companies to resolve confl icts between themselves and when requested, the BLM will assist in facilitating agreements between the companies. The BLM will also exercise authority provided in the leases, applicable statutes, and regulations to manage federal mineral development in the public’s best interest.

•

•

•

•

A4-2


Confl ict Resolution or Cooperative Development Agreements: The policy set forth in this memorandum requires, if requested by the lessees, the Authorized Offi cer (AO) to review and/or approve confl ict resolution or cooperative development agreements between oil and gas and coal lessees. The BLM will advise, review and/or approve such an agreement only after reviewing all terms and conditions of the agreement to ensure that the provisions are consistent with this policy, applicable regulations, and statutes. The BLM’s approval provides assurances to the parties that the agreement is consistent with lease obligations, regulations, statutes, requirements of conservation of the resources, and the provisions of this policy. The BLM’s approval of the agreement reduces the risk of delays, disapproval of permits, or the issuance of operating orders inconsistent with actions required under the agreement.

Confl ict Administration Zone: The BLM will establish a Confl ict Administration Zone (CAZ) around each active coal mine or Lease-By-Application (LBA) area that has a potential for confl ict with CBNG development; in order to provide timely notice to the coal and CBNG lessees or operators. This will provide more certainty to both oil and gas and coal lessees or operators as to the need for the prevention and resolution of such confl ict.

A. The BLM will establish an expected 10-year mine-out zone around each surface mine where CBNG development is already underway or is anticipated. The zone will be used to designate a CAZ.

B. The BLM may include within a CAZ all or part of an approved LBA. The purpose is to anticipate and mitigate, if not prevent, future confl icts on coal tracts that may be leased.

C. Each CAZ must be reviewed annually to adjust its boundary.

Once the CAZ is identifi ed, the CBNG lessees or operators will be notifi ed immediately that their oil and gas lease is within the CAZ. Specifi cally, the oil and gas lessee or operator will be notifi ed of near-future mining activities, BLM’s authority to require the proper and timely development of leased resources, the prevention of waste and proper abandonment of wells, and the potential availability of incentives such as a royalty rate reduction to encourage development. Upon establishment of a CAZ around a coal mine, lease modifi cation, or LBA tract, the BLM will review the status of all oil and gas leases within the CAZ for CBNG development and take the following actions:

A. For each oil and gas lease that is producing CBNG, the Authorized Offi cer (AO) will send a letter of notifi cation to the lessee and operator that the lease is within the CAZ.

B. For leases that are not producing CBNG or for leases that are not being diligently developed for CBNG, the AO will, in the letter of notifi cation, request to either im-mediately drill and produce all previously approved Applications For Permit to Drill (APDs), immediately submit APDs for approval, or show cause why the lessee or operator should not be required to produce the CBNG in such a manner that will maximize recovery of the federal natural gas prior to the removal of the coal. The letter of notifi cation should also require the lessee or operator to provide in writing a response to the AO within a designated timeframe.


A4-3

C. Lessees or operators who reply that it is uneconomical to drill one or more CBNG wells on the lease and, therefore, do not intend to develop the CBNG resources must supply satisfactory proof supporting their assertion to the AO. This proof must factor in a royalty rate reduction of 50 percent.

D. Lessees or operators who do not respond within the requisite timeframe or cannot demonstrate that drilling CBNG wells is uneconomical will be ordered to drill wells, consistent with good economic operating practices, pursuant to 43 CFR 3162.2-1(b) and provisions of the lease requiring prevention of waste. Lessees or opera-tors who fail to comply with the order to drill wells are subject to the full range of sanctions for noncompliance with an order of the AO.

Prompt compliance will accelerate the recovery of the cost of drilling and operating a well and help to maximize the return to the lessee. All APDs submitted within a CAZ will be given a high priority for processing. This will allow extraction of as much of the CBNG resource as possible before a confl ict with the advancing mine.

Incentive to Accelerate Natural Gas Production: To avoid the bypass of federal coal resources or to avoid waste of or to conserve the CBNG resources, the BLM may offer a royalty rate reduction to oil and gas lessees. This incentive is to encourage CBNG operators to drill wells and extract as much CBNG as possible in the time available to allow uninterrupted coal mining operations. This confl ict policy does not apply to oil and gas wells which produce from zones deeper than those coal seams being mined.

To qualify for a royalty rate reduction the oil and gas lessee must agree to expedite CBNG production in a manner that will maximize the recovery of the resource before required abandonment, and to cease operations and abandon wells and facilities at BLM’s request prior to the arrival of mining operations in the area of the wells. The BLM will notify the oil and gas operator at least 180 days prior to the date when the well should be abandoned. Any royalty rate reduction offered pursuant to this policy will be in the interest of optimizing both the coal and CBNG recovery. Those oil and gas lessees who agree to these conditions will be afforded the following:

A. Any CBNG well located on a federal oil and gas lease and that is within a CAZ, including existing wells, will be eligible for a 50 percent royalty rate reduction on CBNG production for the remaining life of the well. The BLM has determined that in absence of such royalty reductions, recoverable CBNG within the CAZ is likely not to be produced and further that such reductions are necessary to maximize the recovery of valuable coal deposits.

B. To receive such a reduction the applicant must:

1. Submit a plan acceptable to BLM for maximum effi cient production of CBNG during the period preceding the anticipated commencement of coal mining op-erations; and

2. Agree that, upon the order of the AO, it will cease operations to enable the com-mencement of coal mining operations, and take such measures to plug well

A4-4


bores, reclaim production pads, and remove production equipment as may be directed by the AO.

Interim Abandonment/Reclamation: Abandonment and reclamation of wells, production pads and related ancillary facilities must be approved by the AO in coordination with the coal lessee. In most cases, permanent reclamation of the well sites, access roads, pipeline rights of way, etc. may not be required, but only stabilized suffi ciently to prevent erosion or other negative environmental impacts.

Existing Royalty Relief: Nothing herein is intended to limit the availability of royalty reductions to either the oil and gas or coal lessees under other circumstances that would qualify for such relief under existing regulations and guidance.

1. Coal Royalty Rate Reduction: Requests for royalty relief from coal lessees, as a result of costs associated with resolution of CBNG and surface coal mine devel-opment confl icts, will be handled on a case-by-case basis consistent with current guidance addressing the unsuccessful operations or expanded recovery/exten-sion of mine life: fi nancial test categories in BLM Manual 3485.

2. Oil and Gas Royalty Rate Reduction: Regulations and guidance for royalty relief for oil and gas under existing regulations can be found in 43 CFR 3103.4 and 43 CFR 3103.4-1.

Background: As development of CBNG accelerates inherent confl icts with nearby surface coal mining will continue to exist. In a majority of cases in the Basin, the oil and gas leases were issued fi rst with a reservation of the right to the government “to dispose of any resource in such lands which will not unreasonably interfere with operations under this lease.” In such cases, the coal leases were issued subject to the condition that coal mining not unreasonably interfere with operations under a preexisting oil and gas lease. The BLM issued an Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2000-081, February 22, 2000, to help BLM offi ces to manage this issue, however, concerns with potential and actual confl icts continue. It is important that all lessees and operators are made aware that BLM has statutory and regulatory authority over all phases of federal oil and gas production and over Maximum Economic Recovery on federal coal production, and that the BLM will exercise and enforce these authorities, up to and including lease cancellation, should lease terms and regulations not be met. The BLM’s actions will maintain the overriding goal of conserving the resource and maximizing the return to the public in both revenue and energy production, and protecting public health and safety while mitigating environmental impacts. This policy may be considered for other coal basins in the future. Confl icts with underground coal mines may also be considered in the future.

Timeframe: This Instruction Memorandum is effective immediately.

Budget Impact: Some redirection of BLM fi eld offi ce personnel may be required which might impact existing workload priorities.

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: None.


A4-5

Coordination: This was coordinated with the Wyoming and Montana BLM State Offi ces: the BLM Washington Offi ces of Fluid Minerals, Solid Minerals, and the Department of the Interior Offi ce of the Solicitor.

Contact: Assistant Director, Minerals Realty and Resource Protection at (202) 208-4201.

Signed by: Authenticated by:Lawrence E. Benna Robert M. WilliamsActing, Director Division of IRM Governance,WO-560

A4-6



Appendix 5Federal Coal Development Restrictions

A5-1

APPENDIX 5

FEDERAL COAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS

For this inventory, the Buffalo and Casper, WY BLM offi ces and the Thunder Basin National Grassland all used the same set of restrictions, found in the 2001 update of the Approved Resource Management Plan Update (Appendix D: Coal Screening Process) for the BLM Buffalo Field Offi ce (cite website – http://www.blm.gov/rmp/wy). To avoid duplication, these restrictions are just marked once in the document, and have the same restriction number for all three jurisdictions.

Note that only the pages of the land use plans that contain restrictions used in the Inventory are reproduced. The restrictions are annotated with an EPAct code, e.g., [EPAct Code: milcit03a] for a restriction in Miles City, MT BLM. The EPAct coding system is used to identify coal leasing restrictions for modeling purposes.

A copy of BLM’s special lease stipulations for Wyoming and Montana, followed by Form 3400-12, BLM’s standard coal lease form, follow the coal development restrictions.

A5-2

Appendix 5Federal Coal Development Restrictions


Appendix 6Referenced Documents

A6-1

APPENDIX 6

REFERENCED DOCUMENTSCOAL RESOURCE DOCUMENTS

1999 National Coal Resource Assessment Non-Proprietary Data: Location, Stratigraphy, and Coal Quality of Selected Tertiary Coals in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region, OFR 99-376http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/coal/coal_assessments/index.html (source for all USGS assessment data)

1999 National Coal Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region, Prof. Paper 1625-A

2000 National Coal Resource Assessment Geologic Assessment of Coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, Prof. Paper 1625-B

2001 Resource Assessment of Selected Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern and Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions, Prof. Paper 1625-C

2002 Resource Assessment of the Springfi eld, Herrin, Danville, and Baker Coals in the Illinois Basin, Prof. Paper 1625-D

LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Approved RMP for Public Lands Administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Offi ce (2001)

Decision Record for Coal Suitability Redesignations Amendment to the Powder River RMP (1992)

Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (2003)

Little Thunder ROD (2004)

North Antelope/Rochelle (NARO) North ROD (2004)

North Antelope/Rochelle (NARO) South ROD (2004)

West Antelope ROD (2004)

West Roundup ROD (2004)

Land and RMP for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (2001)

North Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease Application Final Environmental Impact Statement (2001)

RMP and EIS for the Casper Field Offi ce Planning Area – Draft (2006)

•

•

•

•

•

A6-2

Appendix 6Referenced Documents
